User talk:Urban XII
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Userboxes
|
Welcome to Wikipedia, Urban XII! I amMarek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message onmy talk page or by typing{{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post ontalk pages you shouldsign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Marek.69 talk13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Urban XII, welcome to Wikipedia!
I see you are a new user and I was wondering if I could ask you something. You recently nominated the articleBoris Malagurski (which I have contributed to as I am a sincere fan of his latest filmKosovo: Can You Imagine?) for deletion and have not taken into consideration that not only does this article have far more references than the average article dealing with this area of interest, but the sources include some fairly high-profile ones, such as a state Ministry, National television, radio, newspapers, and many other media sources. Due to all this, it is very likely that the article won't be deleted, but I just wanted to better understand your motivation behind your actions, since I saw you were active on articles dealing with the Pope and the EU, which have nothing to do with this filmmaker. So, if you could let me know your thoughts, I would greatly appreciate it.
Also, if you need any help with anything on Wikipedia, feel free to drop me a line :)
All the best,
--CinémaC01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now it seems to be you're here to push an agenda. Your recent edits toBoris Malagurski have had a clear POV pushing attitude. This is why I am now asking you to stop and respect the five pillars of Wikipedia:
 | Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias,almanacs, andgazetteers. Content should beverified withcitations toreliable sources. Our editors'personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not asoapbox, anadvertising platform, avanity press, an experiment inanarchy ordemocracy, anindiscriminate collection of information, or a webdirectory. It is not anewspaper or a collection ofsource documents: that kind of content should be contributed instead to theWikimedia sister projects. |
 | Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citingverifiable,authoritative sources whenever possible, especially oncontroversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on thetalk page, and followdispute resolution. |
 | Wikipedia is free content thatanyone can edit and distribute. Respectcopyright law. Since all your contributions arefreely licensed to the public, no editorowns any article: all your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. |
 | Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellowWikipedians, even when you disagree. Becivil. Avoidconflicts of interest,personal attacks, and generalizations. Findconsensus, avoidedit wars, follow thethree-revert rule, and remember that there are 7,081,239 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith,never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, andassume good faith on the part of others. Be open andwelcoming. |
 | Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here.Be bold in updating articles and don't worry about making mistakes. Your effortsdon't need to be perfect:prior versions are saved by default, so no damage you might do is irreparable. |
Also, it would be nice if you replied to my posts on your talk page, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I was doing my best to resolve the problem in a polite and civil way, so I would appreciate the same from you. Thanks, --CinémaC18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up, Boris.Urban XII (talk)19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the original court transcript to the external links. I guess there would be no objection to that.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try todiscuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwiseyou may beblocked from editing. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Have a good night, Mr. or Mrs. "Rubbish".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articleGefängnis Zürich has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{dated prod}} will stop theProposed Deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. TheSpeedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andArticles for Deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Drmies (talk)18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming from your edit history that you understand German, here is an interesting source I found[1]. It sure isnot at all a reliable one but might be helpful in finding more information as it is based on other (reliable) sources. I think it would be worth to find, screen and confirm or debunk those. I would do so by myself but I don't think I will have the time to do so soon. Take it or leave it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominatedGefängnis Zürich, an article that you created, fordeletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gefängnis Zürich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.Drmies (talk)19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am a journalist for Swiss National Television preparing a report on the fact Roman Polanski's wikipedia page was frozen over an "editing war". I would like to interview you by webcam about your opinion on this and the whole case. My deadline is urgent: i would need to have your contribution by Thursday morning 10 am Swiss time.
If you are open to this, could you please email me at the following addresses:
laurent.burkhalter@tsr.ch and laurent_burkhalter@yahoo.com
or call me, if you are in the US: 011 41 79 570 37 17 or elswhere at ++41 79 570 37 17 thank you—Precedingunsigned comment added byBurkhala (talk •contribs)12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burkhala (talk)12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason for you to remove my contribution toTalk:Roman Polanski. Rather than start a war over this, I suggest we discuss dispute resolution.Physchim62(talk)13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your one-man crusade to include the pirate party in the page for theGerman federal election, 2009. You have now been reverted by six or seven different people. Nobody supports your position.KarlFrei (talk)08:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong There is no such consensus to be found on the talk page, quite to the contrary. Please self-revert, as this edit is in violation ofWP:BLP policy.13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting on theFrédéric Mitterrand article, you are on the verge of a 3RR violation, please stop and take it to the talkpage,.Off2riorob (talk)22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbalchat23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isrequest BLP related block. Thank you. -Bilby (talk)11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Verbalchat16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your last edit to polanski to link to justice ministry, there is already a link to the ministry in that paragraph, we only link to one such situation in each paragraph, would you remove it please.Off2riorob (talk)20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whu? I didn't add anything to the article, an editor removed copy, claiming that it was not supported by the reference, and I reverted because everything they deleted was stated plainly in the article.WookMuff (talk)01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life" or "La mauvaise vie" the original French title was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting thebrothels ofBangkok. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide." At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but since he publicly defendedRoman Polanski when he was detained inSwitzerland on an American request forextradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl, he has had to defend his writings.On October 5th 2009Marine Le Pen of theFrench National Front Party quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and also of "sex tourism" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist party spokesmanBenoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.”[1][2] SomeConservatives supported Mitterrand, a close aide toNicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister and described the controversy around him as "pathetic."[3] Mitterrand also insists the book isn't an autobiography, The publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography" and the BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel"[4][5][6] In his own defence Mitterand stated, "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity — and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book, he also stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemnpaedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."[7][8]
In the future, please do not markreverts orpage moves as minor edits. These are not minor edits, and marking them as such is generally considered an abuse of the feature. The guide to using this feature can be read atWP:MINOR. Thank you.13:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have changed the title of the section without any discussion or consensus to do so, I suggest you revert it and take any issues you have to the talkpage.Off2riorob (talk)17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on the discussion page. First you deleted the reference to criticism of Mueller, then you deleted the critical opionions in the reference, saying that they were unreferenced. This is improper. Please be more careful. --Zeamays (talk)02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have reported you for 3RR violation on Herta Muellerhere .Off2riorob (talk)15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made four reverts on October 11. If you will undo your last revert, where you removed once again the "little-known outside Germany" passage, you may be able to avoid a block for violatingWP:3RR. In addition, please agree to stop edit-warring on this article. If you do so I would close the 3RR case with no action.EdJohnston (talk)15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You andUser:Feketekave have been edit-warring onVolksdeutsche. At the moment you appear to have stopped reverting there, which is a good idea.
I'm officially notifying you ofWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies which allows admins to use discretionary sanctions on any topics involving Eastern Europe. You should be especially careful to obtain agreement on talk pages before reverting hot-button articles likeVolksdeutsche.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines
Discretionary sanctions are usually more severe and need less review than the usual admin actions. This is yourDigwuren notice. Let me know if you have any questions on how you can edit so as to avoid sanctions under this case.EdJohnston (talk)17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who?Str1977(talk)18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Federal" is a translation of "Bundes-" - Ministers in the Weimar Republic were not called Bundes- but Reichs- but because the latter cannot be translated properly it is omitted. There's no reason to omit "Federal" post 1949. And why are you saying the Weimar ministers were Federal - the Kaiserreich was just as much federal!Str1977(talk)19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Urban XII, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion ofKriminalfall von Amstetten - a page you tagged - because:valid alternative search term and thus valid redirect. Also, please not blank the content when tagging. Please review thecriteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.SoWhy11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not misquote sources.[9] I am sure you can find other sources that say the words you want to put there. Changing what a source say is very serious. Please, chose to be a content contributor, not a reverter and misquoter. I sincerely hope we can agree to disagree opinion-wise but edit constructively, without problems. Thank you very much.Dc76\talk14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you also to look over the paragraph starting with "After the second round of talks..." The two possible version can be comparedhere (only referring to this particular paragraph.) If you would edit it to the way you see best fit, chances are it would be just fine by me. So, may I ask you to give it a try tomorrow. I can translate the Romanian sources if you need. Just mention it. Thank you very much. And, again, I am sorry about our past misunderstandings.Dc76\talk02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History of Germany since 1945 is named that way because it includes events past 1990, don't move pages without even reading the article!--Nero the second (talk)13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Nero the second (talk)13:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try todiscuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwiseyou may beblocked from editing.SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I answered each of your comments in the relative talk page.--Nero the second (talk)14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, please be aware, that if you move a template (like{{Infobox German State}}), you should move the documentation page (.../doc) too. This will help other users to edit the template and using the infobox. (Although IMHO, this move was not necessary.) Thanks.Sebastian scha. (talk)15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit toAngels & Demons (film) was reverted for two reasons:
If you would like to include the "errors" section, take it tothe talk page. Do not revert a week-old edit. Thank you.02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) I reverted vandalism content deletion. The section was not trivia, insisting on "sources" is trolling because this is uncontroversial material covered in depth by other articles on Catholic issues.
b) I didnot revert any other edits than than content deletion.Welcome to Wikipedia, you probably haven't noticed that reverts using "undo" only remove the particular edits.Urban XII (talk)02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AtHans Filbinger, someone recently added an infobox with a field "Political party". It was incomplete, since it showed only CDU, but not NSdAP, which is one of the key points for understanding why he was so controversial. You need not agree with my opinion about the relevance of NSdAP membership of Filbinger, but – just in case nobody has made you aware of that before – accusations of vandalism such as this one[10] are completely inacceptable in a genuine POV conflict.HansAdler21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
Hello, Urban XII, andwelcome toWikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being aCatholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to theProject talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. It is also a good place to come if you have any questions. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing!
For your overall pattern ofdisruptive editing, I have blocked you for 48 hours. The disruption includes: tendentious POV editing onHans Filbinger and elsewhere; aggressive revert-warring; making repeated false charges of vandalism against content opponents; using BLP violations (atHorst Ehmke) as aWP:POINT tool to enforce your preferred outcome at the Filbinger article; disruptive wikilawyering, and a general pattern of treating Wikipedia as abattleground. See also the related ANI thread with complaints about your editinghere.
Don't bother crying admin abuse: Since I have never been in a dispute with you except in my role enforcing BLP on the Ehmke article, which is a privileged admin action underWP:BLPSE (see warning here[12]), I am in no way barred from taking administrative action with regard to your editing.Fut.Perf.☼19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urban XII(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
A user involved in a content dispute with me atHorst Ehmke (andTalk:Horst Ehmke), over whether to include the well sourced NSDAP membership of Ehmke in the infobox, has abused his admin privileges to block my account. He has also made inappropriate threats of using his admin tools to enforce his POV.
The user makes a false claim claim of "BLP" violation. There is no BLP violation. I did not even introduce the fact that Ehmke was a Nazi Party member in the article. The fact was already included and sourced (see page history). Adding this to the "otherparty" parameter in the infobox, even with indication that he was an "inactive member" (a solution already agreed upon in similar cases), is no BLP violation. I did never edit-war at all to include this information either.These are all the edits I made to the article, I never reverted it.
The other allegations are utterly false; my edits at the articles referred to were constructive edits and clear improvements of the articles in question. The POV charge would apply equally to the edits of the user who blocked my account, for instance his revert-warring at the Horst Ehmke article.
The block is clearly politically motived and grossly abusive. SeeWikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, particularly the paragraph on conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute. I intend to make a request for de-adminship due to abuse of admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute over whether to include certain sourced information in an infobox.
Also note that the user in question,User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has a history of trouble and has been blocked himself in the past.[13]
Thanks for reading.
Decline reason:
No admin is going to unblock you if you insist on besmirching the blocking admin (or any other user, for that matter) - all it does is prove that the block in the first place is valid. —20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Urban XII (talk)19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urban XII(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not "besmirching" User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, it's the other way round (see above). Pointing out that the user in question was involved in acontent dispute with me atHorst Ehmke, that there was no BLP violation, only myconstructive edits which clearly improved the article, that the block is a violation ofWikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools (the section on conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute) for reasons evident atTalk:Horst Ehmke, and hence an abuse of admin tools, and that the allegation of POV is utterly false and at least applies equally to the user who blocked his opponent in a content dispute, is not "besmirching".Urban XII (talk)20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
This is a fair response to the concerns raised atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Urban XII, Hans Filbinger and Hans Adler – Request for feedback, linked above. When this expires, please take care to seek collaboration with your fellow volunteers. This is anencyclopedia, not anot a battleground. Please also readWikipedia:Vandalism -good faith attempts to improve an article, even those that are ultimately rejected by aconsensus of the editors at the talkpage, should never be described asvandalism. -2/0(cont.)20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Urban XII(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No, the block was justifified with alleged "BLP" violation atHorst Ehmke. There was no BLP violation as demonstrated above. The user who blocked me was involved in a content dispute with me. This content dispute had nothing to do with the other discussion referred to. The fact remains that a user who was involved in a content dispute with a different user uses his admin tools to block his opponent in that content dispute.Urban XII (talk)20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read ourguide to appealing blocks for more information.Beeblebrox (talk)20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Urban XII(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edits toHorst Ehmke, the alleged "BLP violation" and reason for the block, were a constructive improvement of that article. The block is not "necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" because these edits were no BLP violation, but perfectly fine and balanced edits which improved the quality of the article. If you think these edits were somehow a BLP violation, please explain how. I introduced no new information in the article, this was more or less a copyedit. 2) I have never caused damage or disruption to Wikipedia, quite on the contrary, I'm a productive editor who has written/improved countless articles and never been blocked for anything. I invite you to review my contributions. 3) Users involved in content disputesare not supposed to block their opponents in the content dispute, no matter. 4) While my opponents in some content disputes seem to use Wikipedia as a battleground and frequently attack their opponents at pages like WP:ANI, I have no interest in such quarreling (see for instanceUser_talk:Urban_XII#New_ANI_created) and concentrate on contributing productively, i.e. writing articles.Urban XII (talk)21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The request is moot because your block has expired. Sandstein 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi Urban XII, how is going?
I remember that you have nominatedBoris Malagurski (on September 2009) for deletion and it was deleted. Seems that it has been re-established. Were you aware of it?
Thank you.kedadial18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
As you seem to have tangled with this lot in the past, perhaps you might have something to contribute atWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BormalagurskiOpbeith (talk)16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article isBoris Malagurski. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see alsoWikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski (3rd nomination). Please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove thearticles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by abot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk)01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, when you think an articleunbalanced, don't let itscontent disappear, but instead add{{unbalanced}} to it. Thank you. --bender235 (talk)10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
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)14:05, 24 November 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)14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Qwerfjkltalk18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help){{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help){{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help){{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help);Missing or empty|title= (help);Unknown parameter|Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help){{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help){{cite web}}:Check date values in:|accessdate= (help)