User talk:R9tgokunks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 254: Line 254:
== 1RR vio ==
== 1RR vio ==
Please note you are in violation of 1RR on ARBPIA related edits - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833382399&oldid=833382076 Revision as of 06:13, 31 March 2018], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833382820&oldid=833382768 Revision as of 06:18, 31 March 2018], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833533380&oldid=833531863 revision as of 04:27, 1 April 2018]. I respectfully ask you self-revert.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please note you are in violation of 1RR on ARBPIA related edits - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833382399&oldid=833382076 Revision as of 06:13, 31 March 2018], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833382820&oldid=833382768 Revision as of 06:18, 31 March 2018], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yigael_Yadin&diff=833533380&oldid=833531863 revision as of 04:27, 1 April 2018]. I respectfully ask you self-revert.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bellezzasolo}}, {{ping|NeilN}} I'm getting very tired of this. There are no mentions on those articles of sanctions, and this user has now posted this message two times on my talk page. [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>'''''R9tgokunks'''''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue'>✡</span>]] 21:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:23, 1 April 2018


Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Grand Theft Auto soundtracks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lordtobi () 08:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, R9tgokunks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name (n).Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for alerting me User:Xx236, I was very tired when I made those edits. Thankfully the problem was resolved!-- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League

I just wanted you to know that the information you wanted to insert was removed from the lead. First, the lead summarizes and shouldn't be a house for unique information not present elsewhere in the article. Second, the article wasn't identifying it as a "bomb" in the sense that you were using it when you linked to that page. It was using the term as a symbolic reference for the film not performing better, not that it didn't make money. They kind of go out of their way to point out that if it was any other franchise, it would be considered a success, but because it's Justice League it's considered a "bomb" simply because it didn't make a billion dollars. They weren't actually comparing direct costs to revenue ratios and we shouldn't be presenting the information as if they were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Bignole, In modern times, the phrase 'box office bomb' is used liberally for any film that does not make what is expected, see "The Mummy", "Blade Runner 2049," "King Arthur", and "Justice League." -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The very page you link to says that it's more than just simply not making back what it costs. Again, the issue not about whether it lost money, the issue is two-fold: The lead is not the place to introduce unique information that isn't present in the rest of the article, and Forbes was talking about how Justice League compares to other franchises and because of its hype is considered a bomb, not because of actual money lost. That's my point, they go out of their way to point out how it's made as much as many other films that cost similar, but it is not living up to reputation. You cannot insert that into the lead for sensationalism when there isn't context to explain what Forbes is saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, User:Bignole. The fact is that Justice League is a box office bomb, and this is well reported as a simple Google search indicates. In 2017, the term has been used liberally for films that grossed more than their budgets but did not perform as expected. See Blade Runner 2049, King Arthur, The Mummy (2017 film), and Justice League. Here are many sources calling it a box office bomb, and the term 'box office flop', which links to the same wiki article:

1.The Atlantic calls it a 'flop.'

2.Uproxx calls it a 'bomb.'

3.Screenrant calls it a 'box office bomb disaster.'

4. [1] Forbes does, as sourced before, and no it's not a "joke" as you claim: "Justice League is somewhat unique unto itself in terms of being able to make so much and still be considered a bomb."

5. Vulture calls it a 'flop.'

6. Business Insider calls it a 'flop.'

7. Observer calls it a 'flop.'

8. toofab calls it a 'flop.

9. Express calls it a 'flop.'


etc.

I notice you frequent your time on articles pertaining to DC products. Do you happen to work for DC or Warner Brothers? Perhaps you should take a break from editing DC related articles as you are letting personal interests get in the way of the mission of Wikipedia. It's quite a conflict of interest and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. See: WP:COI. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't presume to know me based on what I edit. It's unprofessional and uncouth to accuse me of having a COI because you think I work for something I don't simply based on my edits. I have also edited tons of Horror related articles, do you assume I work for those companies as well? Please don't try to distract the discussion with baseless accusations.
Second, you clearly keep missing my point. I never said the film was or was not a bomb. What I said was that (and I'll try to make this clearer for you):
1) The lead is for summarizing an article NOT for inserting unique information not present elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD
2) The way Forbes is talking, you're presenting the information without context and Forbes is clearly talking about the film in relation to its performance and other franchises, not simply the Xs and Os of budgets. Yes, it has failed to make its money back. Not disputing that, nor disputing the actual label of "bomb". I'm telling you that you are misattributing what Forbes is saying by trying to make it seem as though they are specifically talking about cost and revenue. It's much more than that and you can see that from reading the whole and not title grabbing.
In conclusion, what you should surmise from this is that you need to develop the box office section more to reflect what you're trying to add instead of simply taking the shortcut approach and throwing it in the lead (where it doesn't belong, because the lead is for summarizing).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, per this discussion, I will add that information via the sources i have amalgamated into the box office section, and then after I will reinsert it into the lede, as it is very notable, and currently isn't mentioned at all on the article, which i find sinister. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit does not match your edit summary? --NeilN talk to me 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I'm sorry User:NeilN ! I didn't know you already removed it. I assumed something went wrong with my editing. I was in the process of removing it when that happened. No malicious intent! I've also messaged that user on their talk page letting them know it goes against WP:BLP and WP:RS.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually EEng who removed it. Do you want to undo your edit? --NeilN talk to me 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, whoops. I see that now. I don't think I can at this point because i've made a few more edits attempting to add past information, with good sources, such as Newsweek. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

The reason why I think this is better suited as a category is because it only has one column, and your reason might not apply because the template could be added to other articles. ToThAc (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milo Yiannopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message

In regards to the sources please find the links below! I'm not to sure how to edit all this but feel its important.

Thanks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bright-screenwriter-max-landis-accused-of-sexual-assault

https://screenrant.com/max-landis-sexual-assault-harassment-allegations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.53.220 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nemetsky National District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halbstadt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic languages

Hello. There is a dialect continuum from the Low Franconian to the Central Franconian and High Franconian languages via Limburgish. Limburgish was already affected by the High German consonant shift and is already transitional between Low Franconian and Ripuarian. Also, Low German has more Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germanic) features than Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alternative for Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Anti-Islam
Young Alternative for Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative for Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, R9tgokunks. You have new messages at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States).
Message added 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stickee (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited On Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English people article

But therefore wouldn't my addition hold true since ethnicity falls under association ("otherwise associated with England")? I only add this because the article implies that English people are only considered so if they are born in England; "native to", (native referring to ones place of birth and nothing else). What would you define as an English person and the difference between ethnic and nationality in this case? Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to hear your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.70.183 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

category changes

Please stop edit warring with me. I am updating a category that you are interfering with. Charles Manson, Al Capone and many others are not in the category because they are not currently prisoners or detainees of the US government. If you desire to help with Wikipedia, perhaps you can add th em...if you can convince others that they should be included. Please stop your vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. You are the one who is commiting vandalism. see WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is the REMOVAL of content. R9tgokunks 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my posting to your talk page? I explained earlier I am updating a category. You have decided not to discuss and have only threatened me with being a vandal and that I will blocked. Sir or Madam please stop interfering in my editing with such blatant disregard. I explained earlier the category prisoners and detainees of the us government is for current prisoners and detainees only. I have offered as proof the fact that Charles Manson and Al Capone are both excluded for obvious reasons though both served considerable time in US prison. Please communicate and do not remove my edits, nor my posting to your talk page. Thank you!2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains I am not a vandal and will not debate the issue with me. You removed my posting to your talk page and have continued to revert all my edits for the category in question. I do believe to remove talk page discussions on any talk page is a violation of Wikipedia policy and is in fact vandalism itself.

1. Vandalism is the removal of content, which you are doing. READ WP:VANDALISM. (I already stated that above.)
2. Wikipedia policy specifically states that users can do whatever they want to their talk pages. I can delete whatever I want. Also, you're complaining about me removing your post after I had re-added it, anyway. R9tgokunks 03:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content changes as the time changes. Please explain why the two individuals I cited are not included in the category? It is because they no longer fit the category. Perhaps, you should wait for a real answer rather than resorting to edit warring and vandalism. Thank youWell please reread the General talk page. Please use some sense man!

This IP is going through almost every article and removing the same category. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @R9tgokunks: As well they might; as they have explained on your Talk page, the category should not remain on the page of everyone who at one time was a federal prisoner indefinitely. Discuss with them, please. General Ization Talk 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you will assist me with reverting all the undo's that need to be done. Or perhaps you wish to consult with another higher up? I can wait. Though I believe the consensus right now is two to your one2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some relevant tags, sadly I don't have time right now to review this in more detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danish colonial empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ada and Cong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Correctman (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Czechs and Germans[reply]

Hi! Czechs are not related to Germans. The only people in the Czech Republic who are related to Germans are Sudeten Germans, who are ethnic germans living in the Czech Republic. Czechs are a Slavic people. There are german minorities in France, Poland, Italy. That doesn't make the people living in these countries related to germans. It's only the ethnic germans living in those countries that are related. If u need more explanation. Dont hesitate to write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talkcontribs) 03:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited County of Saarwerden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bockenheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. In the Low Saxon-speaking regions of the Netherlands, Low German is referred to as Low Saxon only, and in the West Low German-speaking regions of Germany, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Also in English, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Only in the East Low German-speaking regions, Low German is referred to as Low German only. You might want to have a look at the version as of 14:58, 11 November 2017 before someone classified Dutch and Afrikaans as "Netherlandic". Also, it is strange that there is, since 18:51, 7 December 2017, a category "Standard variants" for the Low Franconian languages, when there are other standardized Germanic languages as well. And the West Low German dialects have more in common with the Anglo-Frisian languages than the East Low German dialects. Also, Dutch and Afrikaans are West Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change because it is inaccurate. We have to add what the major companies says not somebodies conclusion. 45.116.233.40 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images in signature

It should be noted that it is against Wikipedia policy to use images in your signature. Please alter your signature to remove the images as per WP:SIGIMAGE. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realized it's actually a Unicode character. Ignore me. Canterbury Tail talk 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of any mention of newspapers.com

I am astonished you have repeatedly removed edits by different editors of any mention to one of ancestry's biggest products newspapers.com. Newspapers.com is used as a reference in many wikipedia articles and it would be helpful to know something about the website (which is also in partnership with wikipedia). I understand you're not liking self references. But press releases identified as such announcing the product are o.k. You have also removed third party references. You should always assume good faith rather than nuking. You can tag the entry but nuking the entire section is not the way to go on such a major product. Americasroof (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't only that, as the section also looked like an advertisement. R9tgokunks 03:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns But it's still a fact that newspapers.com is a major part of ancestry. And the section had third party references. You should assume good faith. You can flag the references but it's disingenuous to remove any mention whatsoever. Americasroof (talk)Americasroof (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should also stop making misleading comments about me "removing every instance." I have not done that. It is still mentioned in many places in the article. Your passion and concern for this even in the face of what is happening is illogical and ridiculous. R9tgokunks 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR vio

Please note you are in violation of 1RR on ARBPIA related edits - Revision as of 06:13, 31 March 2018, Revision as of 06:18, 31 March 2018, revision as of 04:27, 1 April 2018. I respectfully ask you self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellezzasolo:, @NeilN: I'm getting very tired of this. There are no mentions on those articles of sanctions, and this user has now posted this message two times on my talk page. R9tgokunks 21:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]