User talk:Yopie

Thanks Yopie

Hi, I am Guilatshalit, and I wanna say Thank you Yopie for your comments, I hope to improve my articles and keep on editing wikipedia, thanks for your advice , now I will preview my articles before I edit , thank you so much.

czech prime ministers

I have another source that podivinsky is member of kdu-csl http://kducsl.cz/getmedia/966f7a80-58e6-4095-a70a-cc889e1435a0/KDU-CSL---KL-PSP2013-MSL.pdf.aspx note that candidate number 8 is clearly marked as independent.

Friedrich Count of Luxburg

I have undone your edit. Dblanchir should be allowed to make the best case he can. IMO none of this helps, because it is all about the family, and if the article is kept it will certainly need drastic trimming, but let the AfD complete first - let's not give him an excuse to go to DRV saying he has been censored. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ´m not against Dblanchir or von Luxburg, but his last edits were not in Eglish, but in some sort of Gibberish. --Yopie (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand cross section

Hey, what is up with you, I am adding new information to that page and more than a half of those pictures are mine and I am trying to a lineup dates with correct awards, so before you mess with what I did compare the upgrades and you'll see it's only made to look better, and I did it in sandbox and than saved to the main page, So PLEASE don't screw that page, in original version you have 1870 recipient next to 1813 section, it needs to be organized. How else I suppose to edit, it was ok before what is wrong now, and who are you to police it?

See WP:Mos about style of articles.--Yopie (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Lazarus

The recent posts and amendments are meant to correct the repeated historical mistakes that were being perpetuated by the biased errors that have been written on the original article. All historical facts MUST be referenced and based on documentation and not bias. Many reversions were made by contributors without even an attempt at reading the new text or requesting clarification. This is simply engaging in an "edit war" without even attempting to verify the text reverting automatically even bonafide attempts to provide references for statements. This is contrary and an abuse of Wikipedia policy. CSavonaVentura (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]