User talk:Jasmir54/Archive 3

number standard

Please don't invent you own standard and applies to the infobox, as you did in Banca Carige and Banco BPM. It is common to use billion, such as Microsoft. Matthew_hk t c 05:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but it's not invented: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator 7 section, thanks by the way your edit is ok sorry. Jasmir54 00:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Italian use dot (.) as separator, but in English use comma (,). Matthew_hk t c 05:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but why exactly 3 decimals, and not 4 or 2? you can say 45.67 billion or 45.6789 billion.

Thanks for the comments and the patience. Jasmir54 00:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can both agree that with 4 decimals the Bank pages would be more accurate. Thanks Jasmir54 03:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communion and Liberation

Please don't throw a bare url of Google Book, please provide page number as well as using {{cite book}} and fill some necessary parameters. Matthew_hk t c 10:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Jasmir54 20:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Please provide page number of that book. Matthew_hk t c 23:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly? There aren't currently Google Book citations on Communion and Liberation Wikipedia article. I already answered you but my talk page keep being vandalized by some new users. Jasmir54 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chat with new user GioA90

I think you should read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and other related: what you did was against the wikipedia rules for a number of reasons:

You should use the talk page, as someone pointed out that the page is not accurate and has a not neutral point of view
You can't just remove the tags about neutrality/point of view because you feel like it
If you have comments on my changes, that can be constructive
The citations I am using are quite good and often better than the one of before (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Citing_sources ) for a number of reasons: they're mostly in English, I am citing published books with pages and official documents, I am actually citing things which are written inside the things I'm citing
The current language used is better, as it avoids "weasel words" such as "many workers in Italy think that..." etc.

I could go on: there's the talk page for this, but clearly you can't understand you have a POV which is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first welcome on Wikipedia, please sign your posts with four circa symbols. Thanks for your efforts but you have to proper source your edits. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 20:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I forgot about the signature. Now please, I made some points, don't you think you're not trying to be neutral on the subject and are breaking a few wiki rules?GioA90 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Welcome on wikipedia GioA90, please read the references guidelines on wp. Jasmir54 22:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution since there were those tags, you were supposed to discuss in the talk section not delete everything. And, if you read about dispute resolution, you can't just delete those tags as you did. Moreover you're using improperly citations (look at the talk page, the points I made), and you should not just say "your citations are bad", but argue which are bad and whyGioA90 (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, thanks. Jasmir54 23:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Communion and Liberation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ifnord (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the Communion and Liberation page nees further vandal assistence because there are new users same replacement behevior without proper sources. Jasmir54 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Communion and Liberation, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Matthew_hk t c 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when I removed them exactly? And please answer at the Carige infobox talk thread when you will have time. Jasmir54 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in Talk:Banca Carige as well as i told you before, in wikipedia we commonly use billion and less significant figure. Matthew_hk t c 00:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For removal i am talking about this edit (and the second removal), throwing bare url without page number did not resolve the problem of the article. Before resolving the problem, don't remove the tag. Matthew_hk t c 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal opinion and your refill template was removed because I used reFill. Now I have to go to work. Thanks again for your contributions. Jasmir54 03:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chat with Lzzy303

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Communion and Liberation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop vandalizing the Communion and Liberation page. The content you are constantly reverting the page back to is intentionally abusive. You got rid of the organization's description, the organization's history, most of the structure, and information on the organization's mission. You turned the Communion and Liberation page into a page comprised only of criticism against the organization. That is bias content. Furthermore, the content cited is comprised mainly of criticism against the organization, rather than citing the many publications of the organization itself, or any content that would be considered unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzzy303 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Communion and Liberation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Objective information has been deleted from the page and replaced with bias information and is mostly linked to biased primary sources. The mission statement was removed. There is nothing about the origin of Communion and Liberation. He has repeatedly undone many edits by others to maintain the page to be bias. Lotuspwr33 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Lotuspwr33[reply]

Please stop vadalize my talk page, if you have any issues please refer to the wikipedia guidelines; I invited you at the TeaHouse. Jasmir54 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at KL-7, you may be blocked from editing. I don't see the point to remove page number and removing {{cite web}} from citation Matthew_hk t c 00:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/852000698. Matthew_hk t c 00:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Matthew_hk, It was a broken hyperlink as you can easily check. By the way thanks for the clarification. Sorry if it was a mistake. You can contribuite too. By the way sorry again, best regards. Jasmir54 03:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

www.jproc.ca/crypto/kl7.html is not dead. But you chose to remove the {{cite web}}. tagging dead link is {{dead link}} Matthew_hk t c 18:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad sorry. I have added the infobox too in that article, it was missing. Thanks, have a nice day. Jasmir54 16:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimateuserxx. Thank you. Matthew_hk t c 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_hk new messages

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Communion and Liberation long term edit war, meat sock and User:Jasmir54 other behavior. Matthew_hk t c 19:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another quick report Matthew_hk... Jasmir54 21:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]