Jump to content

User talk:Iseult/2015/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

[edit]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

[edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

[edit]

Reverted edit on Bulgarians

[edit]

Hi, why was my edit on the article Bulgarians reverted? With it I just have restored the version of a section, that was standing here for nearly a two years or more. Also, the new additions are very obscure. Nobody believes that Bulgarians are a tribe of Turkic origin. The Bulgarians are a Slavic people. Read the article, please. The Bulgars were a people of Turkic origin. Also the added image and a map are related to different people, the Thracians and Bulgars, not to the Bulgarians. I think, you simply do not have a sufficient knowledge about that issue. Please, remove the incorrect additions. Regards. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@88.203.200.74:, it appears to me that you practically blanked the section, as shown here: Special:Diff/696302596. It also appears to me that the assertion that the Bulgars are of Turkic origin is cited quite thoroughly, as you can probably see with this present revision. Even then, your viewpoint is present (the first sentence of the section Bulgarians#Overall is as such: 'Until recently the Bulgarians were believed to be a tribe of Turkic origin, but the results of the study had failed to show any Turkic connection, showing that the Bulgarian population is genetically purely Indo-European and stands closest to the group of the Slavic peoples...'). So, essentially, before you removed all those paragraphs about the Turkic origin stuff, the article already held that the Bulgarians are Slavic. What you did, as it seems to me, is remove history of the train of thought leading to that conclusion by the scientific community. Dschslava (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

[edit]

Please do not continue to restore the messages blanked here. The user has every right to remove the messages from their talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Oh whoops. Sorry. Forgive me for the misunderstanding. Dschslava (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]

Hello Dschslava, Merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.54.250 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice on diplophonia

[edit]

Thank you for your advice on diplophonia. I want to add some contests from the paper.ツバル (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling anonymous users Vandals

[edit]

Do not ever call any user weather anonymous or not, a vandal! As for my edit here WP:Persondata if you don't know, have been depreciated by WP:Consensus here. I strongly advise you to change your behavior, and revert your change. In the worst case I will need to do it myself through an admin of my choice.--184.97.149.210 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. In the future, do no do such edits, without notifying me on my talkpage. Thank you.--184.97.149.210 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@184.97.149.210: I apologise. At the time, I was a bit overwhelmed with legitimate vandalism, and accidentally blanked the autofilled edit summary. I then resorted to using an inappropriate and undescriptive edit summary. I was also not aware until two days ago of the Persondata consensus. In any case, my bad. Dschslava (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for helping me out in the article Konami. I wasn't sure if I were to revert it again would constitute 3RR. 2602:304:CDC0:D470:31AC:952A:B418:78AE (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]

Moved barnstar here at 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Fulbourn hospital

[edit]

Hey, why did you re edit my edit on the Fulbourn hospital page? I'm just trying to prove a point to someone that anyone can edit it so it would be great if you could just leave it there for like 10 minutes? Thank you! Sarahh6695 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT Dschslava (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gay bars

[edit]

These articles should be expanded, not deleted. I thought using Out's list to start stubs would be a good thing... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Very well. In their current form, though, they seem very much like advertisements, which is a tad troubling. Dschslava (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they written like an advertisement? They establish notability using an LGBT publication and say why the magazine chose them for their list. Seems like a reasonable stub to me, but I'll try to add more content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: When I first tagged those articles, all they contained were a very very brief summary of the subject and what seemed like a promotional quote. Things like "The 'Masque wrestling team' performs every Friday night" and "And don't forget your Stetsons and Wrangers. Yee haw!" only added credence to my belief that it was quite promotional in tone. In any case, when I first tagged them, WP:ORGDEPTH was very much in play, but we'll see how that goes when these articles are expanded. Dschslava (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just figured these quotes would be the start of a reception section. You see similar quotes at others articles, including Good ones like Three Sisters Tavern. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Mm. Perhaps I'm a bit too presumptuous of myself, but it would be nice if these articles could have been polished to a little better degree in your sandbox or something like that to avoid future misunderstandings. Dschslava (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand. I was just doing a stub blitz, based on the Out list. I was disappointed by the number of articles about LGBT establishments, so I was just trying to get the ball rolling on filling a content gap. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: All right. If you need to use the diffs of this discussion to defend the articles, by all means. Dschslava (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??

[edit]

What are you thinking?? Quis separabit? 03:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Oh god. Did I misread the diff? Oh god. Oh god. Much apologies and banging of heads. Dschslava (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure...

[edit]

Why you are accusing me of vandalizing the List of Cadbury products article? I went through the many diffs of that page, and noticed the IP that just got blocked for vandalizing the page also edited it before his/her edits started to be reverted. You can go through my contributions yourself, if you like, and see how much 'vandalizing' I have done. 2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB:, after going through your edit history, I'm inclined to believe you. It's just that this [1] looked an awful lot like vandalism to me (because of what it did) and that I've seen a lot of misleading edit summaries. Dschslava (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. 2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB:, it's all right. Everything's all right. Dschslava (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell

[edit]

Thanks for the endorsement of the article! I'd been getting a little frustrated since I'd submitted the edit request awhile ago, and had it previously approved by another editor. The talk page was surprisingly inactive. Would you mind making the edit yourself and marking the request here as fulfilled? I prefer not to directly edit articles on which I have a COI when possible. Thanks again!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: I won't be able to do it myself for a while due to other commitments, but I suppose that I can begin work in 7-8 hours. Dschslava (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CUBA Platform draft->article

[edit]

Dear Dschslava, thank you for your review. We asked two independent contributors to make review and I have just moved the article to main section of wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUBA_Platform Please let me know if an further actions are required. Wish you Happy New Year:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreyLednev (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made "move" action when I was on talk page of the draft... Please help me to move the the draft of CUBA Platform to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreyLednev (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreyLednev: I'm sorry-you'll have to ask an administrator to do that for you. I don't have the capability to do that. Dschslava (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iseult/2015/December&oldid=1083956300"