User talk:Plarem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Year in country articles[edit]

Hey, I've noticed you created, among others, 2010 in Poland and 2011 in Poland. I wonder if you would be interested in helping to create other similar missing articles? Most articles from List of years in Poland are still missing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Croatia[edit]

Although it is nice you try to improve this article, your references about Catholic Church and conservatism should not be part of this article. Croatia is a secular country where Church is not creating laws. So this is based on your views and hearsay. I will delete that. Government is the one who creates the laws, and that is the only thing we care about here as we talk about facts. Secondly, access to IVF and what lesbian couples along with doctors would do should not be part of an article. That is pure speculation.

IVF law in Croatia is dealing with infertility, and everyone who has a problem with that has an access to it. That law does not deal with lesbian couples what so ever. You haven't read the law and are not familiar to it. Thirdly, you are also not familiar with the Life Partnership Act. LGBT adoption is NOT legal ok? Constitution does not BAN same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are people who worked hard on this article, and you change it to speculation and personal interpretation of the laws, and we cannot and won't have it. Why did you delete LGBT from LGBT adoption? Article deals with LGBT adoption, not adoption as itself.

Public opinion comes last after we deal with legal issues, but you put it before other things that are far more important. That chart is also unnecessary. That poll was not a big poll and it does not need a chart. Are we going to have charts for every minor research? Also, in English language there is no dot after the year. For example, you wrote (2012.,). That is incorrect. Attitude of politicians? Really? What is that all about? Why do you have to change grammatically correct headlines and paragraphs that are perfectly acceptable? There are some people working hard on this article, and everything that has happened in Croatia so far has been noted, so what were you trying to do?

I am sorry if I'm being rude, it is not my intention, but if you are going to change bits regarding laws would you mind discussing it with people who work on this constantly? And why change it? What was the main drive behind it? You change accurate description of the law into personal interpretation, and then write things that are not true. Public promotions??? What? Gay pride is a pride! It is a march.

Have you read any of these laws, do you speak Croatian?

If you do something like that again unfortunately I will have to start a dispute. You cannot just change the whole article and put personal interpretations in it. Do you know how much research has gone into it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm CombatWombat42. I noticed that you made a comment on the page LGBT rights in Croatia that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "That's what the lead is for, dumbass." Is not an appropriate edit summary, please, discuss the content not the contributor. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Though I understand the sentiment, it's not the right way to go about it, Plarem. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I noticed the comment and came by to mention that myself.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark Miller brought something moderately interesting to my attention on my talk page, and it prompted me to have another look at some of your edits. Why this? The paragraph is about Coming Out Day, and the section is called "Coming Out Day". That's not POV-y and was correctly reverted by Ron 1987. Then, there's a slew of edits like this one, where you seem to go to great lengths to remove the word "pride" from the visual part of the article, by piping (which is funny given that that's the Dutch word for "giving a blow job", but that's by the by). In this case (and perhaps all the other ones) you were again duking it out with Ron, and why? To replace "pride" with "public promotion of LGBT issues", a phrase which is a bit ugly and doesn't really cover what these events are. What the hell do you care if we call these things "Pride parades" or whatever? You don't have to stand on the sidewalk and watch pretty gay men and women parade by; you can stay inside.

    Here's the thing. You may find the term "pride" objectionable, but that's what these things are called. Personally, I find the word "music" in "Music Video Awards" objectionable, since that modern pop shit is just shit, but hey, that's what they call it so I can't go around changing it. Same in this case. I can look at this and go "well, edit war between you and Ron, both sides are wrong"--except that in this case, on the matter of content, you are clearly wrong (as was raccoon, ironically) and I have no doubt that this is the consensus among Wikipedia editors. In addition, I have little doubt that such behavior can easily lead to you being topic-banned from editing such articles.

    Let me reiterate. This must stop, or I (or perhaps Mark, or Ron) will seek a broader forum to address this, and my guess is that you will not like this. If you think my tone is a bit stern, you're right: I have no patience for this kind of POV editing in a sensitive area where Wikipedians ought to be fair and balanced, and anything that even remotely smells of a politically or sexually motivated agenda, I have no patience for it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I second everything Drmies has said. Being a less patient person, I would have blocked you for disruption except for the above warning. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to consensus reached by community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you are hereby banned from editing any and all articles, or participating in discussions, related to LGBT topics anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed after 6 months after sufficient demonstration that you are capable of editing Wikipedia in accordance with community norms. --Jayron32 06:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank's GAR[edit]

European Central Bank, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 03:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)