User talk:Farolif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Farolif! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC).(UTC) talk 13:26, (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

George Galloway[edit]

Really it should be in today's current events rather than Thursday's as the result was announced in the early hours of this morning, but I suppose there's an argument which says he had won from the moment the polls closed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

In a recent edit to the page Fifty Shades of Grey, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. JonC 16:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at United States foreign aid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP 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. Theopolisme TALK 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Central African Republic Bush War[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Central African Republic Bush War, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Keitsist (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Economy of Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please do not keep removing useful references from the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You have deleted relevant material from Teen Witch that is supported under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film Box office: "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why." The factual item in question displays box office competition and is one of many possible reasons why the film flopped at the box office, but is still popular 24 years after its release.

Your second deletion cites Wikipedia:Coatrack which is an essay not a guideline. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Your first uncited deletion was subjective with the comment "remove irrelevant box office item, extra lines".

Your edits are unhelpful, please stop.009o9 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Economy of Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. One more revert at the article and I will report you at WP:3RRN for longterm edit-warring as well as a breach of WP:3RR Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


Courtesy notice[edit]

The report at WP:3RRN concerning your edit-warring at Economy of Greece is here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, as you did at Economy of Greece. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir, Dame and Sheikh[edit]

Hi there,

Sorry, I don't get it what bothers you in the Sir, Dame and Sheikh titles. For me it's apparent that it differs from Mr as 'sheikh' is a title granted to a person by the sovereign (at least in the Middle Eastern monarchies in question, where some of their leaders hold that title), and 'Sir' is the style that signifies that the person was elevated to a knighthood. While on the other hand Mr is not a title, just a form of address. So could you please elaborate what confusion you think this causes? ZBukov (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, "Mr." is not the strongest example. But what about my other presented case of "Dr."? Not to mention "Atty", "Rev.", or a slew of other titles that are earned by the person in question?
Also, 'Sheikh' isn't always a title granted to a person from a sovereign. The word can also denote a scholar of Islam, as well as a person's actual name, as in the case of Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina - hence my reasoning for the title being confusing to some. Farolif (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverend is not a title either, just a style (form of address). The sheikhs in question apparently hold this title as members of ruling families. But even if they gained their title by virtue of being scholars, this is just no confusion, as they are prime minister or emir nevertheless. The fact that there is a Liberian politician called Prince Johnson (Prince being his given name) doesn't change the fact that there are people who bear the royal title of prince. So still this seems to be no reason to delete valid information from Wikipedia. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Nor is there any reason to impose this information on the various articles about state leaders (this one and this one, at current count). Which brings up my alternate point from my first edits to this effect that the titles are unnecessary in the context of these pages. Valid or not, the trivia seems to serve no real purpose, since the persons are "prime minister or emir nevertheless".
(BTW - Reverend is a title. The WP article even acknowledges it as such based on some sources. And why do you continue to ignore my example of the title of "Dr."?) Farolif (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And in response to your comments in the latest edit summaries, I can just as easily advise you to create a whole new article about formal stylings and titles for current state leaders - including the various UN protocols. Farolif (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Your recent editing history at Hun Sen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

If a citation is reliable, and the one you are reverting is, your opinion of that mainstream media presentation does not constitute a reason for you to revert or undue that information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"13 years old"[edit]

Btw the study I linked to is not thirteen, but five, years old. It was published in 2008. --Yalens (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the study was 13 years old, I was referring to the 1999-2000 data which it was based on. Farolif (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC United States Congress members who died in office was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
United States Congress members who died in office, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I apologize if my remarks on any of the wiki talk pages were inappropriate. My comments were made in the hope that they would contribute towards the betterment of the article in whose talk page they occurred. I shall do my utmost to abide by the rules.

Is it appropriate to highlight any factual errors that may exist in an article?

Sincerely,

Vilhelmo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilhelmo (talkcontribs) 13:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as you can cite the sources that dispute an article's claims, and aren't simply playing semantics or sharing your opinion on the subject, then you can introduce any factual errors you believe to exist on Wikipedia. Also, it would have been acceptable to respond to this discussion on your own talk page. Farolif (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Harold Ramis[edit]

Thanks for making it worse. Rusted AutoParts 00:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not worse. I have attempted a temporary fix that retains information. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Source of spending data for the table at Federal taxation and spending by state[edit]

Hi. Last november you updated the tables at Federal taxation and spending by state. Thanks for doing that. I'm having difficulty verifying the values in the spending column from the source for that column, http://www.transparency.gov/state-summary-tabular?tab=By+Location&tabletype=statesummary. Did you have another source or has the format changed since November? I'm going to solve the issue by updating to the most current year, but that source now only shows trillions in one decimal place accuracy and your changes included updating the column to display whole millions and I'd rather not lose accuracy by using one decimal trillions for both columns. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the source's methodology for calculating the per state spending data had changed. I've updated the tables accordingly. Farolif (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! Celestra (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

United States Congress members who died in office Article[edit]

I have proposed that the United States Congress members who died in office article you were involved in the creation of should be expanded to include members who died prior to the 1990s. If you have any additional information regarding members of Congress in office prior to 1990, I would encourage you to add it to the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Wonderland murders. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Winkelvi 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Phillips. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

by-elections[edit]

Sorry, but I think you'll find by-elections do come under the remit of Current events. We have a long-standing consensus of covering them here, in whichever country they happen to take place, and yesterday's was probably more notable than most because of the outcome. This is Paul (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly know nothing about UK politics or the events that are notable in that country, and seem to be just being disruptive for the sake of it. Please stop removing content from pages because you don't personally like it. There has been consensus to include these events for as long as I can remember, and if you don't agree with that you need to discuss it at the appropriate venue. I would also draw your attention to the three revert rule as someone else restored the content, which you promptly removed again. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
And what is the venue where this consensus which you speak of was reached? Farolif (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You're certainly demonstrating a degree of ineptitude. I found several international sources (Washington Post, New Zealand Herald, The Australian, etc) mentioning this topic within a couple of minutes. You obviously didn't look. This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Commonwealth Realms are still sufficiently attached to the UK to report on political ongoings in the motherland. As for Washington Post, the story is found on their world portal parked behind the headline about dozens of people dying from toxic poisoning during Eid celebrations in Pakistan. Yet there is no attempt to mention that story on the Current Events page, is there? Farolif (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well fix it then! Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You're clearly editing in bad faith and will continue to find excuses to remove the information whatever references are provided, so I'm not going to argue with you any more. This is Paul (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've reinstated the Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 to the current events page for today. Per above discussion, you are hereby cautioned that should you remove it again, I will see this as a breach of WP:3RR and/or WP:DE and act accordingly. If you really object to its appearance there, the talk page is there to be used. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The talk page has already been used for this purpose not long ago: Portal talk:Current events/Archive 8#Clacton by-election, 2014. Farolif (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. I agree with you that not all by-elections are notable enough to appear on the current events page. However, both Clacton and Rochester & Strood are. Future by-elections will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mjroots on this. Although by-elections seem to have been included in the past, I'm not sure all of them are notable enough to appear. The last two were, however, and received significant international coverage as demonstrated. Now to another issue, what is your reason for objecting to the inclusion of details of the Victoria state election, other than which countries happen to be reporting it? This is Paul (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What is your justification for adding the Victorian election details, other than which countries (more pointedly, which select publications) happen to be reporting it? Farolif (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
And what is your justification for removing it, other than your own personal objection, which once again is what this seems to be about. What are these "select publications" you mention? What makes them select in your opinion? Your behaviour over the previous issue demonstrated that despite your argument, the number of international sources provided was irrelevant as you were apparently objecting for objection's sake. If you disagree with the inclusion of a piece of information then you need to discuss it on the Portal's talk page rather than edit warring with others. This is Paul (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Justification for removing it - how about the fact it is a state election, not a national election? These aren't even listed in the Current Events sidebar. As for publications outside the UK & Australia covering this story - why would an informed reader be surprised that Bloomberg pays attention to the politics of a country with a widely-traded currency? The article you cited in an effort to prove US coverage of the Victoria election mainly focuses on what the election says about Abbott's government and particularly its budget policies. I'm sure investors and speculators - which Bloomberg and publications like it cater to - would find the analysis interesting, but not the typical Wikipedia reader. Farolif (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In which case, we can expect this to be covered by the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, maybe it'll even get a mention on CNBC? An item doesn't have to appear in the sidebar to be included on that page, and Wikipedia is not about winning. I've no doubt that if/when this appears in other US publications, you'll still find some reason to object. I really don't know what your game is, but life is too short to argue. This is Paul (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If the story doesn't get buried on those other news sources like it is on Bloomberg's site, then we can discuss the importance of the Victorian election to readers outside of Australia and the UK. My point about the sidebar was that the function is generally reserved for nationwide elections, which Victoria is not. In the meantime, I cannot help but notice the hypocrisy of your trumpeting the "not about winning" aspect of Wikipedia while at the same time reverting a completely unrelated change of mine on the Current Events page. Farolif (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Winning had nothing to do with it. While the sidebar mentions the event at the moment, it will be updated, and anyone coming back to the page in a few weeks/months from now would not find it. This is Paul (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If the user is looking for past elections, then they can always link to this article from the Current Events election sidebar: National electoral calendar 2014. Even after the sidebar heading gets updated for 2015, the user will still be able to search for previous years' elections by using the templates in the appropriate article. Hope that eases your concerns some. Farolif (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
So why mention the Uruguayan election? Because it's not in the sidebar? Under that theory we wouldn't have mentioned the US mid-term elections because they were in the sidebar. 'Tis a strange logic you have there, and perhaps a good reason to take up the RFC advice. This is Paul (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Besides the fact that they were national elections, the U.S. mid-term elections saw a fundamental change in the party composition of the federal government, had obvious international significance, and made top news in many countries. Other than that, I can't help but notice that you are now ignoring the issue about the Victoria election after I raised the point that it was not a major story even in the US-based Bloomberg publication. Smoke & mirrors much? Farolif (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Moldovan election[edit]

You have been removing reference to the Moldovan election on the article for 30 November 2014 because it is on the sidebar. My view which is consistent with current and past practice is that national elections are inherently notable and worth mentioning in articles on current affairs. The list on the sidebar is an aide-memoire for editors who wish to refer readers to the detailed article for more information. Please do not remove reference on this page until you have left a message on the article talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to use the sidebar as an aid to remind editors to post the results, but a simple notification that the elections are taking place is redundant and unneeded. Farolif (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)