Jump to content

User talk:Yopie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverted to revision 405158751 by Yopie; read rules. (TW)
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Dating comment by OliverTwist88 - ""
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 44: Line 44:


:Thank you. I agree with you, he is too skilled for "newbie"...--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie#top|talk]]) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you. I agree with you, he is too skilled for "newbie"...--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie#top|talk]]) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

== Your reverting back Black Army of Hungary article ==

Yopie, I'm the original creator for this article, please see my article discussion post before you revert it back. I've addressed the peacock terms issue. Again, please ready my input in the Black Army of Hungary discussion page. Thanks. [[User:OliverTwist88|OliverTwist88]] ([[User talk:OliverTwist88|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 02:10, 12 January 2011

| Archive page

New Message

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Selket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Doh

Doh, I had a brain-dead moment while editing Sudetenland and mixed up Balkan & Baltic. Thanks for cleaning that up! --Hutcher (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and neutrality

Dear Yopie,

May I remind you the heart of Wikipedia's: "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it."

Unfortunately, you seem unable of reaching consensus to such an extend that it questions your neutrality about some topics. Please beware of such behaviour and help improving Wikipedia instead of trying to manipulate it to match your own perceptions.

Thank you. --Rigaaa (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rigaa,

consensus is normally reached by the discussion on talk page of the article. But you don't use talk page and thus consensus is unreachable. Of course, your use of sock-puppet will be prosecuted, if you don't stop with your edit warring. This is last warning, understand?--Yopie (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Order of Saint Stanislaus. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 7 сентября 2010, the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on September 7, 2010 and also the pictures below. --85.76.118.182 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Ryan

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ledenierhomme. RolandR (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with you, he is too skilled for "newbie"...--Yopie (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting back Black Army of Hungary article

Yopie, I'm the original creator for this article, please see my article discussion post before you revert it back. I've addressed the peacock terms issue. Again, please ready my input in the Black Army of Hungary discussion page. Thanks. OliverTwist88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]