|This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
But why didn't yoj approve my writing???😡😓
Received a message about an edit to a John Belushi page? No one in this household makes Wiki edits (just two grumpy, married veterans here), and I am sorry that this vandalism occurred - not sure how, and I don't believe we had that IP address last year (we switched ISPs late last Dec). Either way, again, my apologies. I will make an account to avoid this happening again.
- 1 Karl-Maria Kertbeny
- 2 Pending changes reviewer granted
- 3 Bastos
- 4 Michael Fassbender
- 5 Microsoft Office
- 6 Welcome to WP:STiki!
- 7 Reverted 1 Pending Edit to Revision
- 8 ANI
- 9 Pennsylvania Dutch
- 10 Question
- 11 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 12 Re: John C. Wright's academic degrees and the years he received them: well, not quite every source
- 13 why do you keep changing my changes
- 14 Sorry
- 15 Chemical clock
- 16 Regarding Owuraku Amofa
- 17 My edit
- 18 Accused Content Removal Chetniks
- 19 A question
- 20 A barnstar for you
- 21 Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
- 22 Alberta separatism
- 23 Hillman fortress citations-
- 24 Welcome to Milhist!
- 25 Dhanlaxmi Bank: misuse of Bank name and Trademark
- 26 Dhanlaxmi Bank: misuse of Bank name and Trademark
- 27 Lifehack
- 28 The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
Hello! I tried to translate the English page into Serbian, but it seems like I just edited the English version. I hope that can be undone, and that my translated page can still be saved for sr wikipedia.
Paulina Singer Hi, my name is paulina singer. I can send you a photo of me holding my ID if you wish to verify this. Please stop reverting the changes I have made to my wiki page, as there is some information I would like not to have online. If there is an issue I am happy to give you my email, and we can discuss. But it is disrespectful not to let me edit a page that is only in existence because I am. I appreciate you looking out for my information, as I know others can edit pages with untruthful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuzusilk (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
You are posting on the English wiki, but used "fondsmanager" which doesn't mean anything in english. German maybe? Fund manager maybe? Your other edits didn't add any references to back up your change besides. Nor did you give a reason to delete what you did. You should take you wanted changes to the article's talk page for consensus. Jackfork (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
There’s been a recent edit on this locked page to include unsubstantiated allegations with the only citations being gossip sites TMZ and Lainey Gossip.
“In 2010, Fassbender's ex-girlfriend filed charges for a restraining order against the actor. According to the document, on one occassion after a night of drinking Fassbender "threw [her] over a chair breaking [her] nose." On another occasion, Fassbender allegedly “dragged her alongside their car, hurting her ankle and bursting an ovarian cyst." A month later, she withdrew the claim.”
Why is Lainey Gossip considered a questionable source? Is this based on a definitive list of questionable and non-questionable sources somewhere? Lainey's reports are generally considered accurate, at least based on the writing of Anne Helen Peterson, who has studied gossip in an academic context. Furthermore, the report seems credible: she's directly quoting court documents that we know exist (from the TMZ reference). Is there a standard way to prove or support credibility for this source, or is this a judgment call? Ly yng (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jackfork! I thought you were a bot. Since when was it (Wikitext) not a constructive act? Reading Wikipedia, I noticed that the Microsoft Office page says about Office Open XML, but there is no link to this article. I checked that it is valid, therefore, for the convenience of reading, a link is needed, so that you can go to the given term with one click and continue, nezhele use the search, spending for this time. After all, Wikipedia is a semantic network and it was created for comfortable reading and saving time. Please, return my edit to the place. Develmax (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not the rule, if I switched to an article ONLY to read this particular section where it says explicitly about 'Office Open XML', then I have the right to go to the appropriate article without having to search for the article manually, right? In the beginning of the article only in passing is said about it. Develmax (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Based on MOS:DUPLINK, I agree that "generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated ...". But I would generalize this definition as follows: the link should appear only once in the section (the section this is: the section itself, infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and etc.).
So, let's analyze all the cases in this text: 1 Infobox "software", should be a link. 2 The "Desktop apps" section, meets the first time, there should be a link. 3 Section "File formats and metadata", this section describes the format. In the second paragraph, there is a direct reference to a certain format of "Office Open XML". There must be a link - to understand what it is - you need to go to another page. 4 Section "File formats and metadata", duplicate, link is not needed. 5 Section "Criticism", the name goes, as if it already appeared in the text, here it was possible to remove the link, but since this is a new section, it is better for readers to have it. 6 Section "Criticism", duplicate, link is not needed. 7 Section "Criticism", duplicate, link is not needed. 8 Subsection "Microsoft Office 2007", in the text there is an appeal ("called") directly to the name "Office Open XML", here it is necessary to have a link, but it is not exists - the author's imperfection, needs to be corrected. 9 The "Microsoft Office 2013" subsection, the name "Office Open XML Strict", if it's another term - you need a link to another page about this term, if it's part of "Office Open XML", then you can add a link to this page. 10 Subsection "Office 2008", refers to this format, yes, you can add a link. 11 The "Microsoft Office" template, well, of course there must be a link.
"So, let's analyze" Lets not and say we did. Spending way too much time on a link. Add it back I won't revert it. I will also delete the warning which you should have never got with an added note as well. Jackfork (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jackfork, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Reverted 1 Pending Edit to Revision
Good morning Jackfork!
Thank you for taking the time to review my submission for Requested Article.
I added the submission alongside 10 different, high quality, third-party sources to my submission, which cover multiple aspects of the reasoning behind why the subject that I would like to contribute to is notable. Those are listed here:
1. A Wikipedia article about Naspers Group, where PayU is featured under brands and subsidiaries. 2. An article from Tech Crunch that covers fast-growing markets and features PayU as a company working in such markets. 3. An article from Naspers Group that talks about the appointment of the PayU CEO. 4. An article in Spanish from Telesintese that features an investment in PayU. 5. An article from Medianama which talks about payment aggregators in India and features PayU. 6. An article in pymnts.com which talks about PayU investing in Remitly. 7. An article in hamburg.news talking about Kreditech's expansion to India where PayU is featured. 8. An article in Polish from Spider's Web PL which talks about PayU and Aliexpress. 9. An article in Livemint which talks about digital banking in India and features Jitendra Gupta from PayU.
I see that you have commented that my submission is not notable yet due to the fact that the sources I had added to it cover the "same release from different places". Could you please let me know what you mean by this, given the above mentioned sources and corresponding articles? I believe I've followed guidelines correctly and submitted sufficient support for my Requested Article.
I looked at your requested article and it looks to be about a small subsidiary called Shiprocket not PayU. The sources I checked for Shiprocket contained information that probably came from the same news release. That plus the small size does not make it notable. Please correct if I'm got this mixed up with something else. Jackfork (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahadzhiyska1, I still don't think such a small subsidiary deserves its own page. But I don't have the time to look at it in depth. So if you choose you can add it back I won't revert it. Jackfork (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you revise the rejection of my edit (which really isn't controversial in any way that I can see)? I was just clearing things up, and IMO it really needed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Controversial has nothing really to do when I reverted your edit. Your edit removed a ref and changed where "dutch" came from. At least that is how I read it, so I didn't think your edit was beneficial to the article. Pennsylvania is being protected due to heavy vandalism. Your edit was several edits ago, so I'm not going to revert what I did. However, if you want to make the change and let another reviewer have a look at it I won't object. All you would have to do is redo your edit and it will be reviewed before it is considered accepted. You may also take it to the article's talk page for consensus. Jackfork (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Just checked and I didn't remove a ref, just moved it, and I didn't really change where "Dutch" came from either. That very same reference states it used to cover all of what was then Germany (under "Origin": Dutch, German(ic)). The old version was confusing (and repetitive) in the way it made it seem that using "Dutch" for Germans started indirectly, only in the US, when the term is older and came directly from the endonym already back in Europe (as per the ref). OK, so I'm about to redo this now, but someone else might undo it again, so could you accept it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Re: John C. Wright's academic degrees and the years he received them: well, not quite every source
why do you keep changing my changes
OI! why do you keep changing my edits? I have it on good authority that Kevin is Brian's son.
I am sorry for the vandalism I just thought it was funny.
I wrote on the chemical clock talk page that it incorrectly combined clock and oscillator. Dirac66 gave me the directions on how to separate them. The correct missing content that belongs to chemical oscillator from the chemical clock page is now at chemical oscillator.
Regarding Owuraku Amofa
Hey, buddy, it seems as if you think I'm some sort of promoter, well this makes me laugh. That is simply not the case and I demand a better explanation as to why you removed my edit. It was sourced properly and had factual information that the article lacked. I saw this lacking and decided to jump into action. How can you blame me for spreading knowledge?(BTW that is what your sorry excuse for a website is meant to do Mr. Pedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrystankman (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You references do not meet reliable sources guidelines for this edit. Plus, there was nothing on the YouTube pages that would back up your claim that I could find. It would appear on the surface that all they are is a promotion. If you want to add this information find a good source, and add your edit in a way that meets Wikipedia standards. Jackfork (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It is commonplace to replace a principal's name with someone, or something else. It is my practice to look on the school's web site to check the correct name. This was last year so I'm only guessing but I would say that your name change did not match the school's web site at that time. Jackfork (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused Content Removal Chetniks
If you look carefully, you will see that I accidentally removed too much as I was trying to revert to PeaceMaker67's version and I corrected myseld hence the mass text added back seconds later. PeaceMaker67, Who is combating the same vandel as I. You just reverted the article back to the Vandel's version.... 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why you annulated my edit about Vaccinium uliginosum ? I picked up very much both kinds, many years and almost completely sure that photo is common bluberry(yes, they look very alike). Are you 100% sure you are right? 2607:FEA8:21E0:2:B120:5CBF:DDB4:643C (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Annulated? I checked several pictures of Vaccinium Uliginosum and can't tell a difference between the picture you deleted and the ones I looked at. I don't know what you mean by "common blueberry". There are many different kinds of blueberries and bilberries.
By the way if you want to continue to edit Wikipedia you should get a user name. You don't have to but an editor with a user name and some good edits goes a long way when there is a dispute. I appreciate you contacting me with your question on why I reverted you edit. It wasn't something I did on a whim I actually looked at other pictures first. Jackfork (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)|
Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted a pending change to February 16. I looked for a source for this date of birth in Anthony Lejeune that I could add to the DOY page and it was unsupported by any source there either.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.
As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC
- Toddst1 I can't find where I accepted a change to February 16 concerning Anthony Lejeune. So I assume the only change your referring to is the one for August 7. The sentence containing the DOB in the article's body has an inline citation in the article that is using The Times' obit. I have an account(2 free articles a week) for The Times and the DOB is in fact listed there as Aug 7. That fulfills any requirement that WP:DAYS may have as I read it. Even if a source is behind a paywall it is still acceptable per WP:PAYWALL. I have not removed your citation needed from the infobox DOB but don't think it is needed, and think you should undo your change to Aug 7. You should also remove your edit on the original editors talk page. That's as I see it, but your a much more experienced editor than I, and I could be missing something. Jackfork (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I have since read the talk page for WP:DAYS to get an better understanding on what its guidelines are. But that is all they are is guidelines and not hard and fast rules. At least that is what it says on the page. I stand with others and think that it is not necessary to add a citation to a DOY page as long as it is cited in the subject article. Doing so is redundant and wasteful of resources. It would be huge almost impossible task to go back and cite all the existing entries as well. So I pretty much standby what I posted earlier, through I better understand where your coming from. Jackfork (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The page is poorly written, inaccurate and filled with half-truth and overly opininated statements most of which lack proper citations. If you are the editor Jackfort I strongly suggest you spend some time and hard work to clean-up the many defects and outright inconsistencies and inaccuracies that inhabit the page!
In addition, the grammar syntax and tense are inconsistent and therefore the flow of writing choppy. In total the information contained on the page is inane and not useful. It is mere poorly written opinion by someone who lacks basic English reading and writing skills! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk) If you hadn't added the part about Albertans being "boorish and greedy", I wouldn't have gave you edits a second look. However, I'm not going to spend time in separating out your edits that might be of some value to the article when you add such as that. If you want to try again in a more responsible manner go ahead. Some of your edits looked quite good. Be forewarned that if you exhibit the same behavior it will be deleted again. Jackfork (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Jackfork, Fair enough but, half the page is opinion and half truths! Where is the evidence that Alberta being part of Canada is detrimental to the population of Alberta for instance? Sure Alberta pays some 7-8 billion in equalisation per year but, it also houses an airbase at Cold Lake, the National Forestry centre etc... Without proper citation its only conjecture and should not be included. Not only that but, Alberta benefits by sending people to Canadian Universities outside the province and by welcoming Canadians from other provinces in. Without whom it should be noted the prosperity of Alberta would be in jeopardy.
Secondly, there is no such thing as an Alberta citizen! Alberta does not have citizenship. You can vote in Alberta general elections by virtue of being a Canadian citizen who is resident in Alberta for the past 6 months!
Finally, when talking about oil and gas resources it is incumbent, if one is to write unbiasedly, to mention those resource rights were given to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan by virtue of the BNA Act, 1940 to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression and otherwise belong to the Government of Canada.
The article itself is of little or no value since it is so poorly written and lacks empirical evidence through citation. If you don't want to include my edits it is your loss as it makes you and Alberta separatism look foolish! You should frankly be ashamed of yourself and leave editing to those who can properly execute the English language without confusing tenses or otherwise err in writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk) I care about the articles on Wikipedia not so much about Alberta itself. You are on your way to being blocked from editing. Leave out your obvious bias and edit in a responsible manner. I haven't looked at your edits after the ones I reverted, but you have been warned twice since then, by others. I believe you could be a great addition to Wikipedia. If you do continue to edit have a look at what Wikipedia is not at WP:NOT, and at the point of view section at WP:NPOV. You should learn about adding inline citations at WP:SOURCE as well. Gook luck! Jackfork (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hillman fortress citations-
my quote as I already stated is from the museum ITSELF. But if you must have books which reference it, is referenced here: https://books.google.com/books?id=2Ui1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=%22richter%22+hillman+bunker+colonel+krug&source=bl&ots=0EUqG4akKL&sig=vzw6r8dW1oUpKDNrNKhKuwmSB2M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju18W917TdAhURy1MKHXRbBvIQ6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22richter%22%20hillman%20bunker%20colonel%20krug&f=false
and also here:
You can of course find that book normally but there's no google ebook preview so that will have to do
also here, https://books.google.com/books?id=HBQ3Va075OoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=colonel+kurt+meyer+colonel+%22krug%22&source=bl&ots=EypjKGymV7&sig=uhGAOXPNvaWjAm7gZU234W_vxhI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXvvG23rTdAhUD31MKHY5HBIMQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=colonel%20kurt%20meyer%20colonel%20%22krug%22&f=false
it also appear's in Kurt Meyer's autobiography: https://archive.org/stream/KurtMeyerGrenadiersTheStoryOfWaffenSSGeneralPanzermeyer_201802/Kurt_Meyer_Grenadiers_The_Story_of_Waffen_SS_General_Panzermeyer_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
and here is the photo that I took: https://imgur.com/a/q3vbqad
- (talk) It is up to the editor to properly add reliable citations to their edits with no original research. If I remember right some of your edit doesn't really belong in a encyclopedia. The part about putting his boots on, that sort of thing. However, you can take it to the article's talk page and discuss with others. Jackfork (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Milhist!
G'day Jackfork, and welcome to WikiProject Military history! I noticed your work on Shelby's Raid (1863) and am looking forward to seeing how it develops. If you'd like to sign up for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle, you can do so here. It is an excellent way to get a feel for the project. Once you are happy with any article you've worked on, you can ask for a re-assessment of it at WP:MHAR, where you may also get some constructive feedback, often from others working in a similar area. We have a few Civil War buffs who you could end up collaborating with on such articles if you wish. You might also like to enter any such articles in our monthly article writing contest at WP:MILCON. If you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact me on my talk page anytime. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC) for the project coordinators
Peacemaker67 thanks for the welcome and I will sign up for the Bugle. I started on Shelby's Missouri raid but got pulled away. I need to get back to that and add content and citations. I will ask for a assessment once I think it is ready. Thanks again. Jackfork (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Dhanlaxmi Bank: misuse of Bank name and Trademark
Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus
Dhanlaxmi Bank: misuse of Bank name and Trademark
This is a direct order and request from Dhanlaxmi Bank.
Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus.
Delete Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus.
Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus.
The enclosed domain/URL is infringing upon our clients - Dhanlaxmi Bank - Intellectual Property / Private Information.
We are making an urgent request of yourself and organisation to;
PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING OFFENDING CONTENT -
BRAND : Dhanlaxmi Bank
Type : Brand Abuse - Trademark Misuse - Unrecognized Organization
iZOOlogic provides Security Services to the client and are fully authorised to represent Dhanlaxmi Bank in regards to this matter.
The enclosed domain/URL needs to be removed, based on the following one or more of the following reasons;
- the URL contains Intellectual Property or Private Information that is owned by the client where the publication of such content is detrimental to the client. - the domain or URL displays displays the copyright property of the client, this copyright content maybe a trademarked name, or an image/text based logo, or a designed image or colour scheme representing the client's copyright brand.
iZOOlogic provides security services to the client and we are fully authorised to act on behalf of the copyright owner. The copyright owner have instructed us to engage with any relevant third party or law enforcement agencies to resolve this copyright infringement. We can provide this evidence of authorisation from the client if required.
The information we have provided to you today is true and accurate and we are authorised to act on behalf of the copyright holder.
Please let us know if you have any queries or require any further information to help solve this matter.
We appreciate your urgent attention in removing the above content/domain/URL as soon as possible.
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)