User talk:GPRamirez5

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

Doggone it.

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hi GPRamirez. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for this great contribution. This new section absolutely belongs at the page, and I think you've done a great job of framing it. The topic may also deserve a page of its own; perhaps something expansive, like Armed resistance to racism in the United States. (The Malcolm X–George Lincoln Rockwell telegram comes to mind as also worthy of discussion.) Clearly you are quite capable of using Wikipedia style, but please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello and I add my welcome to Wikipedia, following Groupuscule above. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me or anyone. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi GPRamirez5! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Freedom Riders may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Justice (Oxford University Press, 2006), 403-417; [http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1962/2/13/lowry-sees-threat-of-violence-necessary/ ''The Harvard

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Freedom Riders may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Harvard Crimson'', "Lowry sees ‘threat of violence’ necessary to fight segregation” Feb 13, 1962]; “Letter from Benjamin Mays to MLK Regarding Monroe Defense Committee - December 14, 1961” - http:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GPRamirez5. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gloria Richardson[edit]

Do you mean the heaps of unreferenced and non-neutral material I removed fully in line with policy? Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV... GiantSnowman 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But none of it was verified by reliable sources, and comments like "one of Cambridge's wealthiest and most powerful citizens", "Richardson appreciated her family’s intellectualism", "Richardson learned to more fully appreciate her African ancestry, as well as how to hone her analytical skills in order to fight bigotry and discrimination" etc. etc. are examples of the non-neutral language. GiantSnowman 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harsha Walia (October 23)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1999 Seattle WTO protests may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • edu/wtohist/day2.htm ''WTO History Project'', University of Washington, “Day 2- November 30, 1999”] </ref> Some protesters tried to physically block the activities of the black bloc, however.
  • edu/wtohist/day2.htm ''WTO History Project'', University of Washington, “Day 2- November 30, 1999”] </ref> It took police much of the afternoon and evening to clear the streets. Seattle mayor [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-reliance (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) 09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harsha Walia concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harsha Walia, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Black Panther Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • org/project/what-do-we-want/ "What Do We Want? Black Power" National Civil Rights Museum]</ref> and curriculum<ref>[http://civilrightsmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NCRMCurriculum-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Panther Party[edit]

Thank you for your work on the Black Panther Party page. There is so much in the current page that is infuriatingly distorted, poorly sourced, and distracts from the salient political history with allegations of criminality. I have been too busy to work on this, but it seems vitally important. I really appreciate the efforts you have made to begin correcting these errors. BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several users who really hate the Black Panther Party, in the David Horowitz school, are fairly knowledgeable about the history, very savvy wikipedia users, and have lots of free time. They have made the page truly awful. The page reads like Horowitz, or Hugh Pearson, only more jumbled. The effect is to obscure the politics of the Party. In the long term, I am committed to helping get the page right. But it is hard for me to find time to work on it, especially given that the Haters are always undoing the work we contribute.

Perhaps if we work together, and recruit a few more knowledgeable and responsible editors, we can get the page right.

BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. I appreciate your edits to the page. Where did you go? Policing.the.police (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just got a bit busy IRL. I'll jump back in where I can. I've been working on the Stokely Carmichael page, lately, which has its own controversies. GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, something came up and I will be pretty much out of action until the new year. We were just starting to turn the page around! In another month or two, the page would actually be decent. In any case, there is a link to email me on my user page. Feel free to use it, especially if someone is making edits that reverse the progress made, or if you want suggestions to sources, etc. Policing.the.police (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Srđa Popović (activist)[edit]

I've semi-protected it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: To be able to continue editing after your semi-protection of the article, it seems like the IP user registered a user namned Dwightkschrute91. The user still continue to remove the same info as before the semi-protection. Dnm (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You feel that there is consensus for your version? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement template[edit]

Hello, and good to meet you. Most of the entries you made are really good, very nice. Everyone has missed those. I did remove the Watts riot, which wasn't really Civil Rights Movement related, and put the King assassination riots as a subsection of that entry (and added 'funeral' which should have been included long ago too). John Dittmer, the historian, really has nothing in the body of his article to have him included, but maybe that's just how the page is written and it could be bulked up to include his books and publications, which are now in references. Don't know how the '63 Birmingham bombs and riot was left out for so long. Very good additions. Randy Kryn 20:24 9 October, 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Have left two notes on my talk page under yours. I've put the template events into chronological order (thanks for the push to focus on this again) and added a related section (have put 'Watts riots' into related, seem okay?). Please have a look at both. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:25 11 October, 2014 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, Thank you. Although, I have to say, if Emmett Til, the 16th Street Church Bombing and the King assassination riots are full-fledged key movement events, than the Watts Rebellion would qualify as a key event as well. To acknowledge something as a key event or phenomenon isn't to endorse it. GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Emmett Till himself isn't the event that was key, but the open casket that his mother insisted on, showing his decaying and destroyed body to the world and saying, nonviolently, "Look what you've done to my son". By graphically showing the results of a legally segregated two-tiered society she nonviolently created a movement action. The 16th Street Church bombing was both directly linked with the Birmingham Children's Crusade - the church being the center of James Bevel's organizing and educating the children to nonviolently take their brave stand, and where they marched out of to take their individual walks to talk to the Mayor - and the Alabama Project, which evolved into the Selma Voting Rights Movement (Bevel and Diane Nash at first wanted to kill the people that built and set the bomb, but turned their anger into nonviolent action for the right to vote and organized, that same day, the Alabama Project). The King riots, I wouldn't really put those into movement events if I were solely writing and assembling the template, but when you put that page on the template I moved it to a subsection of the assassination. After reading the Watts riots page I've yet to see how it fits into the Civil Rights Movement, so I must have a closed personal view of the movement as being first and foremost a nonviolent movement (and would define a 'movement' action as being much more structured than a spontaneous riot, a structure built around obtaining a legal civil right). How about if we move Till to 'related' and extend the entry to read 'Emmett Till's funeral', and leave the Watts page in that section as well? Just an idea, or option. Randy Kryn 19:28 13 October, 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decline of Detroit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Sidney Fine, "Michigan and Housing Discrimination 1949-1969" Michigan Historical Review, Fall 1997]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selma to Montgomery marches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posse. 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) 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Selma[edit]

Hello again. I've been interested in the very large additions to the Selma march page that you've been putting up, almost all of it very good work. The newest data has some inaccuracy, but nothing that's in publication as far as I know. When Andrew Young "suspended demonstrations" he did not have the authority to do that (James Bevel was running the movement), but he made an agreement with Selma authorities to have people sign an "appearance book", a book saying that they were there to register to vote and that it would be enough to call off the standing-in-line at the courthouse. Bevel immediately said that this agreement was not in effect, and King later agreed with him. As you have it written it was King's decision. Just a back-story for you, as you are doing the research right now. Bevel also met with, and was fine with, Malcolm X, who he had heard talk years before. Randy Kryn 17:42 18 November, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how to be more precise here, though, without being even more detailed and long-winded. I mentioned Andrew Young by name to indicate that it was his decision, and I think the language there indicates King did not agree. With that said, most of the sources (Taylor Branch for one) do refer to a plurality of unnamed SCLC executives being "panicked" by Malcolm's arrival. There's a photo of Bevel and Malcolm in that Jet article I linked to, incidentally.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check out the Jet page and see if I can photograb the pic as well. A picture of Bevel and Malcolm should be an interesting addition to the important photos of the era if it hasn't been widely used. Bevel was one of those who wasn't panicked when Malcolm X came to town, met with him, and had a good talk in which he invited him to stay and be an active participant in the movement. I should add the Abernathy quotes about Bevel's pivotal role in Selma to the page, but have hesitated using quotes on pages due to the excess weight a quote section gives the words, but in this case they seem appropriate. Again, nice work, and you are really giving the article a much needed infusion of data. Randy Kryn 13:17 19 November, 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mae Mallory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Clayton Powell. 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) 09:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bayard Rustin[edit]

You cannot simply cut and paste text into articles. That is a copyright violation. Please do not keep adding this text. Helpsome (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Rider ranger47 Talk 11:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Rider ranger47 Talk 11:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Gloria Richardson National Guard Stand Off, June, 1963.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Gloria Richardson National Guard Stand Off, June, 1963.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —innotata 04:32, 22 August 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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, GPRamirez5. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you very much for restoring my referenced U.S. State Department quote regarding the leader of the White Helmets being refused entry to the U.S. It seems to have ruffled a few anonymous users' feathers for some reason. That was actually the second occasion that it has been completely deleted by an anonymous user without any reason provided.

Many Thanks,

flemingi 188.141.15.40 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, GPRamirez5. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Origins of the Cold War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSS (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) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

000003 Image Zweige im Schnee Lupus in Saxonia.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Time flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Information icon Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:GPRamirez5. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Warning is in regard to these unnecessary comments that border on being personal attacks (the edit summary "Pathetic Marek", definitely is a personal attack): "if you can't be adult enough to engage with me on the article Talk page...can you at least get it together to sign your would-be-intimidating postings". You seriously need to cool it. -- ψλ 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We've all had a few pathetic moments in our life Winkelvi, haven't you? In my own, I've appreciated the intervention of those who've alerted me to it. Of course, you may believe that Volunteer Marek, after his numerous sanctions and bans for the very behavior you accuse me of, is a model Wikipedian. I'll factor that in.
Wikipedia is no place for humor, amiright? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Personal attacks and childish name-calling are neither humorous nor acceptable. -- ψλ 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

Dispute Resolution is about getting an unbiased Wikipedian to assist in mediating a resolution and agreement when one hasn't been achieved between editors in a content dispute. By canvassing those you believe to be biased, you are essentially thwarting the process.
This warning is in regard to these posts [1], [2]. You've already been advised to cool it. As it is, you are spiralling quickly toward a possible block for disruptive behavior. -- ψλ 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, What is your relationship to Volunteer Marek, and how did you come to be involved in this issue? Have you exchanged any off-Wiki communications regarding his editing strategy and his attitudes towards me? I couldn't help but ask. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no "relationship" with VM, I've noticed what's happening because of what's on my Watchlist, neither of us have "exchanged off-Wiki communications" over the things you've mentioned here. You need to cool it, step away from the whole thing for a while, and get a clearer head. -- ψλ 17:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Continued canvassing here and here. Are you sure you want to push this envelope? -- ψλ 17:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I find your denials less than convincing User:Winkelvi. I think you'll find you're not the only one with a watch list. Cheers. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you believe me or don't. Typically, I don't respond to questions such as the ones you asked above because those who ask such questions are on a hunt for something to disparage another editor. In your case, however, I decided to WP:AGF. No loss to me for doing so, a big one for you with your inability to see the forest for the trees. So be it. -- ψλ 18:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey GPRamirez, since you find it fit to bring up my supposed "numerous sanctions and bans" (false), and since I honestly have no idea who you are, I have to ask - how come you're so familiar with my edits? Volunteer Marek 18:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

All public information friend. It's hard to miss edits which are so large, so unsubtle, and so poorly reasoned. And all targeted at my contributions in recent days...That's just a coincidence, of course. Your good faith is unimpeachable. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the Cold War and NPOV Notiveboard[edit]

Right now, the issue with your proposed text isn't the the sourcing of the information. Just because the information is verifiable doesn't guarantee its inclusion. You need to convince other editors that this information belongs in the article. I suspect ossne of the reasons you're failing to do that is your attitude. The way I see it, you added a lot of text to the article. Later on, other editors removed this and you proceeded to edit war with them. Then on the talk page, when they explained to you that much of your text used bad sources, or the text was unsupported by you references, you fought with them, sometimes using insulting or belittling language. Since then you've been fighting a war on the article. And I'm surse your rant on the noticeboard won't help matters. I suggest you 1) find more sources backing up the claim that lots of historians believe Operation Sunrise was an important cause or contributor to the Cold War and 2) adjust your attitude. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"Then on the talk page, when they explained to you that much of your text used bad sources, or the text was unsupported by you references, you fought with them..."
Except that you yourself on the noticeboard just acknowledged my sources were sound. So the most unreasonable parties were the ones who dismissed them out of hand, weren't they?
Also, besides my attitude, what do you think the other reasons for the denial are? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 201sssssdssa8 (sssUTC)
No. I said that your sources were sound for including mention of Operation Sunrise as an event leading up to the Cold War. Now that I look back on what you had originally wrote, I see that you included some claims on this topic that were not supported by a reliable source. Additionally, there was all the other material that was removed, and other editors gave a list of reasons to remove it, which included your misrepresentation of sources. That's what I'm talking about. As to other people's reasons for opposing the material, I won't speculate. I would guess they've explained that themselves, if you'd care to read what they've written. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what you mean by misrepresentation of a source? Because the relationship between Sunrise and the Cold War was originally alleged to be a misrepresentation by the editors whom you are referring to, and I have since debunked that. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you read them, because you responded to that thread. "Some historians have argued that the Cold War began when the US negotiated a separate peace with Nazi SS General Karl Wolff in northern Italy" was sourced to that NY Times opinion piece. While I personally thing that opinion piece, being written by a historian, is a good reason to include information about Karl Wolff and Operation Sunrise, it cannot be used as a reliable source for factual statements. This was pointed out to you by Volunteer Marek. Additionally, in the same thread, they pointed out that the references you listed after your comment on Khalkin Gol did not support the substance of your comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
If you "personally thing that" you should advocate for it. The guidelines are guide lines. WP:NORULES On finer points, sources are judged according to context. And even within the guidelines, it is acceptable to use an opinion piece by an accomplished expert as long as one is not making blanket claims. "Some historians argue" acknowledges there is debate, and provides links so readers can explore and make up their own minds.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You really don't understand what I'm trying to say, and you've completely ignored what I said about your mistakes, just as you ignored those other editors on the talk page. I am no longer interested in engaging with you, or on this issue. Good luck. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

But if I ignored them, how could I have met their critique on the Karl Wolff issue and successfully rebutted them? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zeila[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeila. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Wolff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation Sunrise (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) 09:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Czechland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czechland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeasement[edit]

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

You were asked to discuss this issue on the talk page in order to see if there was a consensus to include the material in the article, and chose instead to re-insert it without discussion. Please do not do this again. Honor WP:CONSENSUS and make your arguments on the talk page for other editors to respond to.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about the reverts, and acting in an extremely rude and alienating way. Can you please include difs? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, you never reverted my first deletion, so the second reversion was not a violation of BRD. I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. Thank you for your candor. What do you think of the current discussion on the Talk page? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black genocide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Operation Passage to Freedom and Ngo Dinh Can and Duong Van Minh[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you could take a look at the latter two articles, given your interest in this field. A friend of our keeps on blanking sourced material he doesn't like, and then keeps on editing a quote in the final article to misrepresent what the source actually says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbubookworm (talkcontribs) 09:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it look like you already got an administrator involved, but I'll keep an eye on them for sure. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Payne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robin Hood[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robin Hood. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winter War[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why aren't you a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement. Please add your name as a participant. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite!-GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

CRM[edit]

I responded to you a few days ago on the CRM talk page [3] I think you may have over-interpreted my point 3. Would you respond at the talk page again, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I wanted to ask you about a comment you made during the CRM discussion here. What are the best reliable sources you've encountered for the spring and summer of 1963? I've encountered alot of books that are only restatements of Theodore H. White assertion from The Making of the President 1964.

The massive Birmingham protest had triggered demonstrations all across the nation, and, like firecrackers, one popping off the next, all through May and June of 1963, Negroes took to the streets. The National Guard patrolled Cambridge, Maryland; in Jacksonville, Florida, the police cleared demonstrations with tear gas; in Memphis, Tennessee, the city fathers closed the municipal pool. And everywhere from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Charlottesville, Virginia, students manned the lunch-counter front.
The turbulence spread north: in Sacramento, Negroes sat-in at the State Capitol; in Detroit they invaded City Hall and demanded the city fire its chief of police and subject him to criminal trial; in New York, Negro activists dumped garbage on City Hall Plaza; in Philadelphia they clashed with police at a construction site; in Chicago, at a cemetery that refused to bury Negroes. In the ten weeks following the Birmingham uprising, the Department of Justice counted 758 demonstrations across the nation; during the course of the summer, there were 13,786 arrests of demonstrators in seventy-five cities of the eleven Southern states alone.

I came across a quote by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in Journals: 1952-2000 in which he stated,

My guess is that May-June 1963 will go down in history as the great turning point in the fight for Negro equality. There has been nothing like it in the way of spontaneous mass democracy in this county since the surge of labor organization in the summer of 1937.

I have yet to find one or more works dedicated to that brief period. Just curious. Mitchumch (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as full monographs, the closest is the book on the Cambridge movement, Civil War on Race Street by Peter Levy. Also look at p. 165 to 170 in From Civil Rights to Human Rights by Thomas F.Jackson. Recurring discussion of the period appears in The Bystander by Nicholas Bryant as well.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Charismatic descriptor[edit]

Nice work on adding the descriptor 'charismatic' to the King mention on the CRM page. An editor has removed the King mention higher in the lead, so I added your descriptor to the last lead paragraph. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq[edit]

I posted the dispute regarding these sections on US Involvement in Regime Change to the WP Dispute Resolution Noticeboard--NYCJosh (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I posted the dispute regarding these sections on US Involvement in Regime Change to the WP Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. --NYCJosh (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roger Morris (American writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guggenheim Foundation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

Syria related articles are under a 1RR restriction (except for undoing edits of non-logged in users). You just violated that restriction. You just violated this restriction with these reverts [4], [5].

Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note[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.

--NeilN talk to me 16:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wise Owl Barnstar[edit]

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG Hoot hoot
For being a wise owl. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anatolia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR[edit]

Frankly, I don't think this is a well written text. We don't need a new edit war, so I suggest you to self-revert and discuss this text on the talk page first. I don't think citing a review on a book is a good style: the book itself is a good source. I think the general idea is that western world (colonial) created enormous economical and social distortions in Asia, South America and Africa, and famine was a routine event there. This thesis is supported with many good sources, and we can write a good text about that. Addition of this particular text look premature, in my opinion, and it may lead to your block.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"I don't think citing a review on a book is a good style: the book itself is a good source." Under many circumstances it wouldn't be, but when a review or an op-ed is written by a major scholar (particularly a Nobel laureate) it is notable.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your Arbcom statement[edit]

You tell this my edit was problematic. How come? There were two separate sections in the RfC, one for Discussion, and another for vote. I asked you in edit summary not to comment about my vote in the vote section, but comment in "Discussion" section. If you consider this impolite, please accept my apology. I had absolutely no idea that you was offended. Why did not you discuss this matter with me on my talk page prior to making a request for arbitration? My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you not move it yourself rather than delete it? Why did you not notify me on my talk page? Why did you not do the same deletion to Marek's comments, especially since he is the one who had initiated a back and forth in the survey sections? Please.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You could easily sign and re-insert your comment, and that is exactly what you did [6]. Why did you file this Arbitration request after that? My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't reinsert unless I knew about it, and I knew about it from my vigilance, not your decency.

The only way you can demonstrate good faith to me is my replacing "Debate on famines" back in the fourth section, where you found it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But you did notice my revert, you fixed it as you wanted [7], I did not object, and you still filed an arbitration request, without even talking with me anywhere. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please stop pretending that you don't understand English. And let me know when you've replaced "Debate on famines," that will demonstrate good faith, and then we can make a fresh start.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that I moved this section in a bad faith? Why? My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Why? This is why:

_________________________________

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=843864046#My_very_best_wishes_and_GPRamirez5-Breaches_of_civility_and_1RR Statement by Paul Siebert I am not absolutely neutral, because I had been involved in extensive interaction with this user during the EEML story. My comments on MVBW are as follows.

1. 1RR violation. Here are diffs of the talk page discussion between me and MVBW about the 1RR violation this user committed (the diffs describing the violation are inside).
I create a talk page section devoted to 1RR violation by MVBW; MVBW's refuses to self-revert; the dispute continues; more; I request MVBW to self-revert again; MVBW's refuses; I am trying to persuade them; final MVBW's refusal to self-revert. This incident is a continuation of the incident reported by GPRamirez5: during this incident, MVBW selectively cited my opinion, because I supported removal of this particular text, although I made a reservation that the text must be expanded and put in the article at more prominent place. After I pointed MVBW's attention at that misinterpretation, this my argument was ignored.
This as a typical pattern of MVBW's behaviour.
2. MVBW demonstrates deep misunderstanding of our content policy. In particular, this user persistently justifies violations of NPOV on the grounds that everything is ok as soon as it is verifiable. Here is an example: I presented a number of reviews on some particular source to demonstrate this source is controversial, and it cannot be used to summarize the current mainstream viewpoint in the lead. MVBW responded that the source is reliable, so there is no NPOV violation, and was persistently resisting to all attempts to balance the bias. Other users point at these MVBW's mistakes too. Despite that, I see no signs that MVBW is going to abandon this tactics.
3. Despite numerous evidences and sources provided at the talk page, MVBW is advocating a single controversial source and removes properly sourced information about the major controversy around this source from the article, this user was properly informed about that and refused to resolve this problem under a false pretext.
This list is not exhaustive. I can present more evidences if needed.
I hope that was helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

_________________________________

GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @GPRamirez5. No, I moved this text to improve the page, and I clearly explained the reason in my edit summary. Also note that my edit was directed toward finding a compromise with you, i.e. I did not revert your edit, but simply tried to find a more appropriate place for it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Also note that my move and justification were reasonable because it is indeed something only remotely relevant to the subject. Some authors, including Jon Wiener and Seumas Milne, have questioned whether deaths from famine should be considered equivalent to state killings (especially since the demographic data used to estimate famine deaths may not be reliable). Milne argues that, if they are to be, then Britain would be responsible for as many as 30 million deaths in India from famine during the 19th century, and he laments that there has been "no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record". Is that about killings under communist regimes? My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your arbitration case request concerning My very best wishes[edit]

Hi GPRamirez5. I have declined your recent arbitration case request as premature. There are lots of community venues where disputes can be resolved more easily and less painfully (not to mention eons more quickly) than at ArbCom. Venues such as WP:ANI (for user conduct incidents), WP:AN3 (for edit-warring), WP:3O (for simple content disputes), WP:DRN (for more advanced content disputes), and WP:RFC (for achieving clearer consensus) seem like they would be helpful. Here is the boilerplate message I am required to give:

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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. }} My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To GPRamirez5[edit]

To GPRamirez5: Your 1RR against My Very Best Wishes belonged at Requests/Enforcement instead of Requests/Case. For next time or ask an administrator if you can move it. Your complaints have been made by many users for years. Read Message, particularly "He would act like he was following the rules and knew what he was editing. However, discussing with him felt like talking to someone who pretends to be silly to make you lose your patience." Beware there are many editors and administrators who protect him so if you challenge him they will come for you. 5.100.228.149 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Claude of France (1547–1575)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Claude of France (1547–1575). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk message[edit]

Please revert the attack in this comment. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, are you the person to report personal attacks to?

Also is there a protocol for addressing hostile behaviors such as passive-aggression and gaslighting to? Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this update. I was concerned that people might be expecting me to block for the personal attack. The tone of your comment suggests that AE could be the next step for at least some of the parties. Consider asking at WP:RSN whether democracynow.org is a good source for the statement that Filiberto Ojeda Rios was assassinated. Our article on that person doesn't claim that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that strict guidelines usually don't apply to points raised on a Talk page. And within the article, what My very best wishes deleted was allegations of assassination, so that is the fact which I referenced. Puerto Rico's Civil Rights Commission concluded that it was an "illegal killing." Perhaps I should raise that point.GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify incidentally that when I referred to "passive-aggression and gaslighting," I meant My very best wishes behavior, not yours. This open ANEW regarding his behavior has been awaiting administrator action for more than 24 hours. Are you aware of a way in which that could be expedited?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mumbai[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mumbai. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:?egota[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:?egota. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political views of American academics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political views of American academics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stateless nation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stateless nation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)