User talk:Chronus

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rio de Janeiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copacabana (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) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Cinema section in Brazil[edit]

Hi, thanks for contributing to the Cinema section I created in the article Brazil, it looks very good! I'm only curious as to why you moved it under Cuisine from below Literature. It's much closer to Literature than Cuisine, after all. Thanks. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital (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) 09:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL sanctions on November 2015 Paris attacks[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

LjL (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're now on notice - please do not revert on the article again. Myself and LjL have begun discussing this on the talk page, where we would value your input. Thanks -- samtar whisper 16:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't even like these sanctions, but since I am bound to (and have been effectively limited by) them, I think it's fair to request a moratorium on any further reverts, since you are already at two. I have justified my one revert, straight from the edit summary: Christian symbols are inappropriate when neutral ones exist. You have justified yours with nothing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. LjL (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: Do not try justified your terrible job as editor with excuses like that. You put a sanction on me just because a photo! Congratulations! Chronus (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I put no sanction on you. I sent you a notice. Calling my articulated concerns "doing a terrible job as an editor" is honestly unwelcome. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page as asked. LjL (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copacabana (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) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial complex (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) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wet 'n Wild (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) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics[edit]

Hi, thanks for creating this article. I'm wondering, did you copy content from 2016 Summer Olympics? In that case it would be appropriate to follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT, including adding Template:Split on both talk pages, for proper attribution of editor's contributions. Gap9551 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gap9551: In fact, I just transfer the content to the new article and left an abridged version in the main article. Chronus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, splitting was a good idea. But you didn't attribute those editors' work in your edit summaries when removing content from the old article, or adding the content to the new article, a procedure described in WP:PROSPLIT. I've asked an administrator to add the attribution. No worries, that will fix it all. Gap9551 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcomed. Actually I'm still looking for second sources or better citations to established the best WP:NPOV as that section was redacted at first with a clear left-wing politic perception. I don't know of you share the idea with me but if not, Sorry. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)