User talk:Khajidha/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Khajidha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of Czechia / The Czech Republic

Your repeated attempts to undo a very minor, and non-disruptive edit are unnecessary. It is clear that 'unquestioned' is not true and 'generally accepted' is a more accurate and less divisive statement. Czechia has been suggested as an alternative to The Czech Republic. It is not short form - it is an alternative. The issue is not unquestioned - it has been questioned, notably by the leader of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amphibio (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not "an alternative", but official short name of the country, registered with UN, ISO, used on Google maps, so stop telling lies, thank you Helveticus96 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Funny that the two of you use completely opposite language when you both seem to want the same outcome. It's almost as if you have little or no idea how the English language actually works. --Khajidha (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know why my well-documented edits about the official usage of Czechia are being deleted. Thank you!Helveticus96 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not deleted any. I have condensed and rewritten them into cohesive prose. --Khajidha (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, it was R9tgokunks, I have mixed it up in anger. I am really curious why an official Facebook page of the Czech government is something which needs to be deleted instantly. There are several claims, that even the government of Czechia does not use the short name itself, this is a proof that it's not true. Helveticus96 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Australia - East Timor

I'm wondering as to why you wouldn't like to change the information about East Timor in the Australian continent? You'd have to change the graphic of the article, etc. So please, if you are successful or anyone else is confident to do so, then please proceed, so we can have the right information. 173.206.188.180 (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Eastern Europe

Find a source and I'll be okay with it. At the present, your source only says a small part of it is in "Continental Europe". Eastern Europe is a geopolitical term, and just because its stated as being part of Continental Europe, does not make it Eastern Europe... i.e. I agree that Kazakhstan is partly in Europe, but I don't agree that it fits into Eastern Europe. --Buffer v2 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the eastern part of the continent of Europe. Therefore, it is in Eastern Europe by pure geographical definition. The article is not just about a geopolitical term, and even the geopolitical term has multiple possible meanings.Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, just noticed that the article is a geopolitical article. For some reason I thought it was just a general Eastern European article, I'll remove the material myself.Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

English lessons

Thanks for your comment on my user page. I really appreciate that. If you ever observe systematic language mistakes in my writing, please do not hesitate telling me. I am lazy, and this is the easiest way to learn ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Marvel comics mutates

Dear Khajidha,

Actually, I think this article should be called "List of Marvel Comics mutates", but I don't know how to change it. Do you? I'd appreciate it if you could do it. In the meantime, I'll create a redirect page of that name. Rosencomet (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I got it. Rosencomet (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Transformers

The TF Project is now semi-active, but there's not much consensus going on outside the deletions. NotARealWord (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be active with this project. I don't really think Wikipedia should have articles for most (almost all) TFs, anymore than it should have articles for every character in every Shakespearean play. Basically one article giving a general overview of the toys (ALL of them), one giving a general overview of the TV shows (ALL of them), one giving a general overview of the comics (ALL of them), and one giving a general overview of the movies is all that is really needed. To the real world outside TF fandom even such high profile characters as Optimus Prime and Megatron are mere details with no real discernable affect on the world apart from that of the show as a whole. People interested in DETAILED information should be directed to a specialized reference dealing ONLY with TFs. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that. On the project talk page, we're trying to decide just what is fancruft. I don't think much consensus can be reached with just four people, which is why I'm certain we need help. NotARealWord (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons of adding 1,000,000 articles to the list

I've opened a discussion to discuss the merits and flaws of reporting French and German Wikipedias as having one million articles.

See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section.

The Transhumanist 05:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi it is a very difficult223.62.172.56 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Attitude

I don't appreciate being told about writing clear sentences. If you can't pull your head in, a public project such as Wikipedia is not suitable for you. For future reference, it's polite to refer to someone by name rather than "he / she / that man who's still standing here" when that person is in your conversation and you're talking about them to others. Owen214 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

More Transformers stuff

The topic of unlicensed fan-products has come up once again on the TF wikiproject. Since you have commented on this topic previously, perhaps you might want to comment this time too. NotARealWord (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is required

As a participant who has voiced an opinion over at the TF WikiProject about proposals to change the article formats, a set out proposal has been provided and as a participant in the overall discussions, your agreement or disagreement in regards to them is required, if you so wish to provide an answer. Link to proposals here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#What_the_proposal_actually_is Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Move BRICS to BRIC?

• See Talk:BRICS#Continued discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Africa map

Hello ! You did a mistake on this map : [[. Zimbabwe is in East Africa, so it must be in orange and not in red. See this link : http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm Thank you very much. Mightymights (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going by the discussion previously on the page. I realized some time later that the UN definition actually put it in E Africa and not S Africa, but had not been back to fix it. Thank you for taking care of it for me. --Khajidha (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the map (south sudan is in north africa according to the UN). Mightymights (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User Page

Khajidha, why dont you create user page? If you need help, i can help you? But that red one, in all discussions... :( :) Its up to you, sure! I just ask! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my proposal and give your views and opinions

It is regarding "International recognition of Kosovo" and article size. It is not a POV proposal, just a purely technical matter regarding the KB size of the article which is currently too big. Please see my proposal here and give your views and opinions. Regards IJA (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your support and for responding to my proposal. Regards IJA (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Just a small thank you for all the little things you do to improve 'International recognition of Kosovo' article. Regards IJA (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation on the map of continental models

Hi. In case you're interested... Aridd (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I've moved the issue here (onto Commons). Aridd (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the creation of that second map is helpful. The problem is, it's still wrong in its current shape, and (in my view) shouldn't be used as such. The islands would need to be switched from pink to grey, for example. Aridd (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The other map shouldn't be used to illustrate an article that uses terms that are not used on the map. If an article talks about the continent of Australia, the map should label the continent as Australia. I'm not sure how to edit the image or I'd change it myself. --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also edit it myself if I knew how. I've requested that it be done (i.e., that the islands be switched to grey). In the meantime, neither of those maps is really appropriate for the "continents" article. The best would indeed be to have a correct map displaying Australia. Rather than having to choose between a correct map which doesn't use the same name as the lead section of the article, or an incorrect map which provides erroneous "information" to readers (rather problematic for an encyclopedia!). As it is, I'm somewhat concerned that people will look at the article and map and go away believing that the name "Australia" can apply to the entire area in pink. Aridd (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Republic of Kosovo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STOP! This article is under 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. Be careful, Khajidha! WhiteWriter^speaks 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not my intention to edit war, my first reversion was only to restore the previously established English variant on the page. I did so assuming that the GAYousefSaanei was simply unaware of the consensus about using British English on the page. After he (?) reverted my revert the first time I also added a note to his talk page informing him of the standard. His edit summaries when reverting my edits, however seem very argumentative. I note that he reverted me again after my second reversion, an act that has since been undone by User:Seb az86556. I have no desire to edit war and am stepping back from the article for now. --Khajidha (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Links

Well, actually you did removed some links, but than there was a link just like the same you removed in the sentence before. Why not make yourself an usepage? People with userpages in red links often vandalize article. If you do intend to contribute seriously, make that to a blue link, for your own sake :) Anything you do on your userpage will turn it into a blue. Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did separate that last clause into its own sentence. If you look closely, no links were removed but the title "Postern of Fate" was repeated in the new version. The previous version just seemed horrendously clunky. I've been here for a few years, I just don't have much to say about myself. --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I did look, and I realize that I was the stupid one. Never mind if you do not want to tell about yourself, it is not obligatory Hafspajen (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Czechia

Hi, please add your reasoning for wanting the page deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czechia - the name dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Montreal Alouettes page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

You were less active for a while - we missed you :-) It's good to see you around again. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Less free time at work and no internet at home are a bad combination. --Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For shame. Well, your work is appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey dude,you there right now? D80'ss (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

KYIV

And then you worry? You what it touches? This is us - Ukrainian - should be more offended that the occuppants and their descendants and, unfortunately, ordinary Russians who don't know the true history Ukrainian-Moscovia's relations - because Ukraine was repeatedly occupied "brotherly" Muscovy-Russia - did not realize that it can not continue to remain a Russian name. That they are "struggling" to everything remained as before - that was further Russian name of KYIV.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what name you use for my country or any of the cities in it. It's your language, it is none of my business. What can it POSSIBLY matter to you what I call your country or city in my language? It is as ridiculous as you telling me I can no longer use the word "blue" for that color. Basically, English uses Kiev for the city and you need to pull up your big girl panties and deal with it. If you can't, that's just too bad but it will change absolutely nothing about the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, English uses Kiev - russian name of the Ukrainian city of Kyiv. Whew. Because so used. Used not distinguish Ukrainian from Russian. Аnd some Russian authors in English wiki laugh with you, and we.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Where you are born? What is your nationality?

As I said on your talk page, I am an American. Before you ask, I am of German, Scottish, and Irish ancestry.--Khajidha (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And, no, English uses the English name Kiev. That it was derived from the transliteration of the Russian name is immaterial and irrelevant. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether we can distinguish Russian and Ukranian and everything to do with the fact that it is ACTUAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE USAGE. Kyiv is, at best, a rare variant in English. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

if you - and like you - do not understand basic things in Ukrainian - Kiev, and Kiev, - is in Russian, then what can you say? Truth to tell you I will not, because you are so far from it, as the Russians of Ukrainian.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How can you not understand the simple fact that Kiev is NOT a Russian word, it is an English one. The Russian word is Киев. The English language will continue to use the English name. --Khajidha (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if Kiev is an English word, it was derived from Russian. Just because a word is used in the English language doesn't necessarily mean that it is an English word; or perhaps you have not heard of loan words? Perhaps you should consider what others have to say before always thinking that you are right? You are as good as a representative of the US and your attitude does not reflect well on your country. Suppoiued (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Once a loan word is adopted the receiving language is free to do with it as it wills. The derivation of a word is not necessarily the same as the use of a word. I do consider what others have to say, but what is done in other languages can logically have no bearing on what is done in English. The attitude that ones language norms must be followed by other people's languages is what truly reflects badly on someone. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Outside of an encyclopaedia, take whatever usage you prefer. But since 1995, the name of the city is officially romanised as "Kyiv", whether you like that or not. An encyclopaedia would be failing in its duty if it did not acknowledge that. Rhialto (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And that is acknowledged on the Kiev page. But actual English usage is still Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion you may have an interest in commenting on

Hello: As I noticed you commented at Talk:Comic Con previously, you may have an interest in this discussion: WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_31#Comic-Con--HidariMigi (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Epithelium

It's a very important yet untended area of Wikipedia. Your edits are greatly appreciated! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation/United States

I've agreed to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amateur Athletic Association of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

Not sure if there is a single reference that would cover the entire history of WrestleMania, but each individual one is listed on the WrestleMania page. The first one obviously had no number, of the rest WrestleMania 2, WrestleMania 13, WrestleMania 2000, WrestleMania 21, WrestleMania 22, and WrestleMania 23 did not use Roman numerals while Wrestlemania X-Seven and Wrestlemania X8 used a hybrid form. Two others listed on the WrestleMania page as having unique names are actually linked to pages that use Roman numerals. --Khajidha (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually if WrestleMania's use of Roman Numerals has been a bit inconsistant (in the sense that they sometimes use them and sometimes use "standard" numerals instead) then this may in fact not be very notable - most modern uses of Roman Numerals are like that in fact. Think of (analogue) clock faces, for instance - ordinary numbers are actually much more common, and sometimes we don't use actual numbers at all. Perhaps we need a little note at the head of the section? Although this kind of generalisation is even harder to get a speciifc reference for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered removing it because it wasn't consistent. I'd say we either note the inconsistency or take it off entirely. It just seems wrong leaving it alone as it gives the impression that ALL WrestleManias have used Roman numerals. --Khajidha (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at the current text: after suggesting "a little note at the head of the section" I charged in and added one myself. The point is that WrestleMania is no different in this respect from other "modern uses" - only a few of them use Roman Numerals to the extent of excluding "ordinary" numbers altogether. If we went into details for WrestleMania we'd need to treat the "errors & exceptions" for the other applications too. Just not worth it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleting images

If you want to file for the deletion of that beer bottle picture, you have to first go to its entry on Commons, click the 'nominate for deletion' link on the left side of the page, and then fill out the reason it should be deleted. DS (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bilingual name

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Bilingual name. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Greater Iran

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Sheriff | report | 21:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

You're absolutely right about Template:Year article header. Thanks for taking the time to point out the problem in the right place. I just seconded your concerns at problems with the Year article header template. Shall we pursue this further? I've done some template editing but hesitate to jump in and change this one without consultation. Eager to hear your views. ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lifter

Hi there! Thanks for working on the Mutant Force/Resistants characters. Could you also take a look at Lifter (comics)? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Gave it a whirl. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, thanks! 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spike (Marvel Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M-Day. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

White mountain battle

Hi, I know that 'one battle' in view of whole history is nothing, but the White mountain battle is one of the most important battles in the history of Czech countries - it was the real end of Thirty years war, it was start of religious discrimination, germanization and liquidation of czech nationality, not very later was executed 21 Czech lords on the Oldcity cityhall - it was VERY IMPORTANT BATTLE with tragical followings - hundred years (before Joseph II.) after the battle was Czech countres unfree, because was published 'Obnovené zřízení zemské' and everything had changed. It must be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbertík (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)--Herbertík (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fulla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Czech articles

Hi Khajidha. Thank you very much for your grammatical corrections. However, try to not return factual mistakes to the article when you revert. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Khajidha. 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)

Historicity of Muhammad

Have you read the above mentioned article? Don't you think we should do something about it? I'm new to this editing stuff. I don't understand why i can't get it deleted. Even if i'd try to edit it with valid sources, the administrators would revert it. And even if this article's Subject line matches the so-called policy of Wikipedia, the content it contains is nothing but hoax! Haxeeb1987 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are approaching me about this, but I don't see any reason to delete this article. As a central figure in the founding of a major religion, the question of whether Muhammad was an actual person or a later conflation of multiple people (in either case with or without legendary material accruing to the presentation of said person or persons) or a completely made up character is one that has been examined by many people for many years. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"This whole article is based upon the false views and judgments formed by the Jews and Christians only, and the point of view of Muslims has been thoroughly ignored. The article is conveying misleading information to the readers and is nothing but a hoax. Wikipedia is believed to be a source of authentic information based upon true and valid sources and reliable evidences; however, this article clearly ignores this fact. This article is nothing but a baseless discussion which shall not be attributed to the Biography of a Special Historical Figure with whom sentiments of billions of people have been attached. The article shall be deleted on the grounds that the following references are missing: -archaeological proof of existence of Prophet Muhammad; -books written by Muslim scholars evidencing his existence; -Other Christian research and books in favor; -lineage of Prophet Muhammad; -Important and Famous Muslim historical Scientists believing Prophet Muhammad; -Bible mentioning Prophet Muhammad; -Torah mentioning Prophet Muhammad; -Quran mentioning Prophet Muhammad; - Authenticity of Quran and the scientific proof of verses of Quran; -Auliya and Wali Allah following Prophet Muhammad; -True predictions made by Prophet Muhammad; -Letters written by Muhammad to different rulers in the world. etc etc" --Haxeeb1987 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As just one point of contradiction here, neither the Torah nor the Bible mention Muhammad at all as they were both completed centuries before he was born. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you to the extent that Muhammad has not been explicitly mentioned in both of the prior Holy Books, however, He's been referred indirectly in the said books. For quick reference, you can check out: "https://www.facebook.com/notes/al-quran-al-hadeeth-verses/prophet-muhammad-prophesised-in-the-torah-and-bible/186835207997009/" -Haxeeb1987 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of your other concerns are already addressed in the article, as far as I can see. I get the feeling that you find any hint that Islamic tradition is not 100% correct (both historically and doctrinally) to be disturbing. I can only say that Wikipedia has no regard for such feelings. Simply put, there are works out there that have questioned the historicity of Muhammad and we must report on them.--Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

True, we must report on them! Especially the section, with the heading: "Views of Modern Historians", does not justify the article itself as it portrays the negative findings and works of the modern historians. The aforesaid section must have an analysis pertaining to the positive works of modern day Christian and Muslim Historians. Most of the historians cited are none but Jews and they would never utter good words about Islam. Moreover, the conclusion of the section giving three pointers is also totally biased and needs to be tailored in order to justify the true essence of the article. --Haxeeb1987 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

This is just a thank you for your continued engagement with the Czech Republic name issue. Your efforts to maintain the quality and principles of Wikipedia are appreciated. Doremo (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of since

I recently edited the following sentence in the Name section of the Kiev article: "The name Kiev that started to take hold...during a time when Kiev was in the Russian Empire (since 1708, a seat of a governorate)" I changed the word since to from and you reverted my edit with the summary "previous version seems more grammatically correct".

Both wordings are grammatically correct but differ semantically (i.e., have different meanings). According to Wiktionary's definition, since is a preposition "referring to a period of time ending in the present." (my emphasis) However, neither the Russian Empire nor the Kiev Governorate exist in the present, so use of since in incorrect. Instead, from is used to show the origin or starting point, even if no end point is given. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I had misread it as "seat of governance". Your explanation makes sense and I have reverted. --Khajidha (talk)

John Henderson (University of Texas football player)

Please stop your disruptive removal of cited material on John Henderson (University of Texas football player), simply based on the fact that you don't feel it should belong there. Nothing in the article confirms the longevity of their marriage, so the only reference to it is the citation (cited, by the way, to the date in the citation, not some arbitrary date) that you continue to remove. I am trying to assume good faith here, but all I see is the removal of cited material on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for the citation regarding his centenary, a quick perusal through individuals over the age of 100 will confirm that it is common practice to cite an individual's centenary per Wikipedia's standards of verifiability so that readers can easily tell the difference between individuals whose death dates are not known and those who have been confirmed to have turned 100. There has been a lot of persistent, sneaky vandalism about longevity on this project, and that requires extraordinary measures to keep material accurate. Thank you. Canadian Paul 22:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It still reads like a clunky mess, but if that is the standard your project wants then keep it.--Khajidha (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Kyiv (or Kiev as Wikipedia writes it)

I kind of disagree to you reversing my revision 780172385.

The 2 sentences now read: "More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers were killed or captured in the great encirclement Battle of Kiev in 1941. Most of them never returned alive." The "them" in the latter sentence refers to the subject of the first sentence and it really is a bit clumsy to state that most of the killed soldiers never returned alive. By changing "them" to "the prisoners of war" I tried to overcome that small problem.

--Rsmelt (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Hi, thank you for your copyedits at Elvis González Valencia! Your work is greatly appreciated. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christmas carol into Christmas music. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

List of stage names

• Please seek consensus on article talk page before making drastic changes. BOLD is not carte blanche. Quis separabit? 17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I did mention it on the talk page first. Also, if they are "people not listed on this page" how is removing the list of them from the page against consensus?--Khajidha (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In recognition of your diligence, and the intelligence and neutrality with which you apply yourself to article content and discussion. As an aside, I'm also compelled to commend you on your memory: what a catch! Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That silly comparison to "the N-word" just stuck in my head.--Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Longer DYK hook

See my reply. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Kiev

Tunyk (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Hey! Look at my entire edit! You removed not only Kiev !!! Your editing is a violation of the rules. Kyiv City State Administration changed the domain zone of the site from https://kievcity.gov.ua/ to https://kyivcity.gov.ua/ (see for yourself, there is redirection), and once again proves that Kiev is not a true translation. | official_name = Kyiv | native_name = Київ | native_name_lang = uk |subdivision_type1= Oblast |subdivision_type1= Municipality |subdivision_name1= Kyiv Oblast |subdivision_type2= Municipality |subdivision_name2= Kiev City Municipality |blank_name = FIPS code |blank_name =License plate |blank_info = UP12 |blank_info =AA (before 2004: КА, КВ, КЕ, КН, КІ, KT) |blank1_name =License plate |website =Official Kiev tourism portal
Kiev City State Administration
Kiev City Council |blank1_info =AA (before 2004: КА, КВ, КЕ, КН, КІ, KT) |website =Official Kiev tourism portal
Kiev City State Administration
Kiev City Council

Continent

Hi. I don't think it's appropriate to blank an entire section you disagree with from a page that has been there for years, as you did with the area and population section on Continent. Controversial changes (especially removals of entire sections) should be discussed on the talk page. If there's an issue with the source, tag the sentence or whole section, even. Many other editors have not had a problem with it after all these years. It's also linked to from various redirects and has an anchor in it noting this. For that information to be missing for months because of a single disagreement you have with its sourcing is doing a disservice to readers looking for that information. Each continent's page actually links to that section. So I've restored it, in effect reverting your WP:BOLD edit as I could not do so directly. Please discuss changes or its removal, as there are many other issues that come along with removing it outright. Thanks. Ss112 10:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I DID discuss it. The entire table is flawed, using definitions of the continents that do not match any system described in the article and is even inconsistent with itself using different definitions for area and population. --Khajidha (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this, and that looks like the opinion of one or two editors (not you, I mean the IPs who commented in it). There's been no consensus for its outright removal. I get the concerns over what technically is part of which continent, but certain pages rely on it being there. For it to not be is a big oversight. If consensus decides it's not reliable, then that's fine, but I just think we should have more opinions and someone directly seeking a formal consensus for changing it or its removal on the talk page. Ss112 10:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Khajidha. 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)

Nope

Regarding this edit you made on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Century&diff=820813802&oldid=820813039, I reverted. Per WP:IRS and WP:GNG, it states a reliable source must be provided, in which I did. There are two perspectives, Oxford explains it. It is not 'redundant' to point out a fact. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

And all of that was already covered in the previous section. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. Have a good day. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Not 'redundant'

I have no clue why you reverted my edits. They talk about the issue, that's a fact because if you were alive in the 1990s, you would've remembered the debate. It's provide with a reliable source, and I've put the necessary information. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Never mind, have a good day. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Reverting without reason or talk.

Khajidha, start to explain or discuss before you revert any edit. You did not explain your reverts in any of those two cases - Talk:Czech Republic and Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Such edits may be for me be very disruptive. Please explain your doubts on talk pages.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The election was already explained on the talk page and the Czech Republic was sufficiently explained in my edit summaries. Your so-called English was virtually unintelligible and poorly organized. I doubt your general level of competence in the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you and I request explanation. What is poorly organized - older text is not my work. Prove your claim, or this could be identified as vandalism.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The text is all the proof i need.--Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Khajidha, I've been quite busy recently, but I just wanted to say sorry, when I looked at first, I thought that you only reverted my editing in the Czech Republic article, however you did good job and applied whole text to the paragraph. So thank you, and I promise that I will try to improve my (not the best:) English in the future.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at United States presidential election, 2016 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

OTD

I guess I should thank you for your endorsement of FDR "delivered," although it was somewhat ambiguous. I suggest that broadcast is much more often used to denote transmission by radio or TV than any of its other possible meanings, such as "I used a broadcast fertilizer spreader on my lawn this spring." Sca (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Century 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Taiwan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "And I bet you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too." CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar police

Hello there, consider me a member of the grammar police come knocking on your door. I see that you prefer the expression "rapidly in popularity" to "rapidly popular," only one of these two being the accepted standard in English expression. Which one is correct, I wonder? Can you tell me? But English isn't your first language, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually my native language is English. Is yours? Considering that you do not understand that "Japan" is not an adjective, I doubt it. In the phrase "grew rapidly in popularity", the word rapidly describes the growth and the phrase "in popularity" describes the type of growth. In the phrase "grew rapidly popular", the word rapidly again describes the growth but the adjective popular has nothing to describe. It is not properly linked to the phrase "grew rapidly". You can have a popular book or a popular tv show, but not a popular grew rapidly. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt that English is your "native" language, as you care to express it. Regardless of your "origin," in your more recent edit, you reinstated a comma splice, which any grammarian would scoff mightily at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about my edit to Literary criticism, you need to reread the text in question. The clause "no longer was reading exclusive for the wealthy or scholarly" is not one that can stand on its own as a sentence. As the requirement to be a comma splice is that both clauses need to be full sentences, this does not qualify. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to insist that you stop editing articles for grammar. You have a very poor grasp of the English language. Good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHA! --Khajidha (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Trolling, as you have here and elsewhere, will result in your account suspension.

Millennium celebrations apology.

My bad, didn’t see that it covered that information already. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Two Dollar Bill

You're right-I missed it. Thanks for the clean-up. Almostfm (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Czech Republic 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. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

your revert

"no need to link to the general (lemma)" - well, there is no need not to, IMHO. Give me one good reason why urbanisation is not relevant here - or anywhere else, for that matter. Your track record for - let's say "detail" - is well documented. You should have better arguments available than just your gut feeling, consequently. -- Kku (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't link the biodiversity, geography, or music sections to their main articles, the general overview articles are of very little relevance to Ukraine in particular. --Khajidha (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on the George Washington page. Here's something that will perhaps be better to keep the 'red link' away. Just transfer the mark up template from here to your user page.

This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.

Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A late ping

Maybe you'd like to join me here. We should both have reacted differently. User_talk:ToBeFree#Looking_at_this_one_month_later ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK errors

Your post was spot on. It's a shame there was a rush to close down the discussion as the DYK regulars had failed to respond to any such points each and every time. No doubt the usual complaints will resurface in time, particularly given the closing notes weren't particular helpful - I would think that for around 90% of errors reported, there's nothing one of the "owners" of said hook or article could offer that would be any better than any of our other experienced editors. But you hit the ownership issue smack bang on the head. Pathetic I'm afraid, but completely true. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I just find it pathetic that this is being treated as a game and not as a means to improve the encyclopedia. Worse yet, it's a game with no losers. NOTHING seems to be able to fail. And "hooks" are proposed just because the article exists, not to highlight a point. If an article can't produce something more than some of the things we've had lately, why even bother nominating it? Just take satisfaction in having done the article and move on. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the project has a number of veteran enablers who are even content to run the same hook with different subjects, and who will fight to the bitter end to keep a hook regardless of anything. Just recently the data deficient one, the EastEnders haircut one, the cleaner fish one, etc, have all been "fails" but staunchly defended by the project owners for so long that nothing is done and they run regardless. I suppose, if nothing else, the ever-increasing drive to get rid of DYK entirely has now got a load more evidence from the past couple of weeks to substantiate its position. Ditch DYK, replace it with "Today's Good Article" with a nice synopsis from recently promoted GAs, forget the embarrassment that was DYK ever existed.... soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Minna Lammert

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Minna Lammert. Need some help in reviewing this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivory Coast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivorian (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) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of the Czech Republic

Do you want me to delete the version with the personal attack against you on the Name of the Czech Republic talk page? I think it fits the criteria for deletion, so I leave it to you if you want it deleted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care, but it would be odd to have the first time as a hidden revision and the second as a viewable revision--Khajidha (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - good point.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I am just saying hello. It is good to know I am not alone in the wikipedia world. CallMeHonesty (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:TRM

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for taking note of my humble list at WP:TRM relating to errors on, or just about to be on, the main page. The diligence shown by you and your colleagues has resolved more than 500 issues in just 78 days. Your efforts are more appreciated than you can imagine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

BRD

You have made enough edits to know the WP:BRD cycle. I'm finding the MoS as you edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-abbreviations.html -Khajidha (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken, https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0010.html

Renaming Czechia to Czech Republic

Stop renaming the Czechia into Czech Republic. Czechia is the official international name of the country and you are being very disrespectful towards the country. --Jahoda97

General English usage and standard Wikipedia usage is Czech Republic. The "disrespect" comes from the Czech side. It is VERY arrogant and insulting to tell other people how to speak their own language. --Khajidha (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Czechia" is an official english name of the country. This name has been approved by Czech officials, not by foreigners. Why is it arrogant to use it? Johnnyjanko (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Because there's no such thing as an "official English name". There's the "official English form used by a particular organization". General English usage is not subject to the laws of any country, much less one that is not even English speaking. If English speaking countries tried to regulate the Czech language, the Czechs would ignore it. Why should Czechs think they can control English?--Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Armistice

People like you are more interested in your stats, reputation and standing in this broken community than you are in presenting wikipedia as an unbiased encyclopedia. Your pathetic excuse regarding the centenary of the armistice is at best that height of ignorance. This site is full of robots like you, people who lack a sense of the reality of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.54.251 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.54.251 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't give two runny rat turds about my stats, reputation and standing. What I care about is making pages better and presenting the best material we can. That means that a poorly sourced article is not to be presented on the Main Page. I simply cannot see what benefit we do our readers by saying "you know that important event you are interested in? Well, here's a piece of shit article about it. We SHOULD have a well written overview, but we don't. Hope you don't mind reading crap instead.". --Khajidha (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Khajidha. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Leedmark

Why did u delete my Leedmark page? Jules8527 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jan Blanicky returns / Urgent assistance needed

I am sitting here doing some digging on User:Heptapolein and have been very suspicious of them recently as they have a sinister editing pattern and the recent personal attacks they issued at Talk:Name of Czech Republic are also suspect. I think I just discovered something crazy. With the help of the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Czechia - the name dispute I crosschecked various word usage and believe I have found some undiscovered Blanicky (talk · contribs)/Jan Blanicky (talk · contribs) socks, of which Heptapolein is one.

Cesko/Czechia

• Neewi (talk · contribs) is also most definitely him. The amount of articles edited and the interest in Czech classical composers is uncanny. Neewi preaches Cesko/Czechia here.

[[1]]

• It seems SoelProkop (talk · contribs) who was only created to give input at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Czechia - the name dispute also loves the Cesko/Czechia connection. I suspect they are also a Blanicky sock, but I am less convinced due to the singular edit. ([[2]])
• Heptapolein advocates it repeatedly, most notably in this table/list (similar to Blanickys love for tables, lists):([[3]]) and here in this edit summary ([[4]])
• Blanicky's post here as well: ([[5]])

Similar editing patterns

Both Blanicky and Heptapolein have edited Adam Václav Michna z Otradovic(also edited by sockpuppet Spacenet), Adalbert of Prague, Operation Anthropoid.

But maybe the biggest hint is that Neewi, Blanicky(and Jan Blanicky) and Heptapolein all seem to have a particular interest in editing Vladimir Hirsch, making alot of edits to the article and related articles. Blanicky has uploaded numerous photos of him, and Heptapolein has created an article of a collaborator of his.

I did only surface level research on this, but maybe you can do some digging as well. If I am wrong about this I will be surprised as hell. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Addendum to last post: other Observations using Wikimedia Labs tools

using these pages:[6], [7], [8], [9]

• I see that Heptapolein didn't come into existence until a few months after May 2016, when Blanicky had most of his socks blocked. Heptapolein was created in September, (right at the end of summer) and right off the bat seemed to know how to edit Wikipedia well.
• Another interesting thing is that all 4 accounts (Neewi, Blanicky, Jan Blanicky, and Heptapolein) have mostly edited on the English WP, and made a smaller, secondary amount of edits to the Czech one.
• the first three accounts have a large number of edits outright deleted by admins, Heptapolein just broke his cherry there with his personal attacks to Talk:Name of the Czech Republic.
• When comparing Blanicky and Heptapolein using the "Namespace totals" graph, they look practically identical. They both seem to love to focus on posting to user talk pages alongside regular article edits. Neewi seemed to be hellbent on catering to user pages.
• There is a noticeable period where, from June 2011 to August 2011 (the summer of 2011), Blanicky took a break and Neewi's posting skyrocketed. In September, there is an obvious reversal, where Blanicky comes back, and Neewi slows his edits.

The biggest hint

As mentioned before, and even more evident now after analysing their edits, is that these 4 users are all the same. Blanicky/Jan Blanicky and Neewi loved to focus on Vladimir Hirsch, Czech composers, and their Czechia campaign... Heptapolein focuses the most on... Vladimir Hirsch, and the Czechia campaign... Without a doubt, these four users are the same person.

(also of note Jan Dismas Zelenka also has edits from Blanicky, Heptapolein, Jan Blanicky, Neewi, and also the already confirmed sockpuppets of Askave (talk · contribs), Spacenet (talk · contribs), and Malsovicka (talk · contribs).)

(edit: 109.80.140.32 (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock due to edits on the various user pages for Askave and Blanicky; 90.180.161.188 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Neewi for the same reason.)

In conclusion, I am confident that Heptapolein, Neewi, SoelProkop, (& Exactwo (talk · contribs) for good measure), 109.80.140.32, and 90.180.161.188 are all socks of Blanicky. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jan_Blanicky based on a vast amount of evidence that Heptapolein, etc, are in a series of sockpuppets of Jan Blanicky (talk · contribs). If there's any testimony you can give to support it, it's there. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The ball keeps rolling

I've filed a new report on User:Helveticus96 here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jan_Blanicky based on some new investigating and discoveries I have made. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Republic was a republic that is the Republic today

Are you psychically totally healthy? Really, the Republic was a republic that is the Republic today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.101 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that sentence. It was called the Czech Socialist Fepublic, it was a republic within Czechoslovakia, and the same territory is now called the Czech Republic. The version I restored is the longstanding consensus version. If you want to change it, you will need to get consensus on the talk page. --Khajidha (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

PS - Personal attacks do not help your case and can lesd to you being blocked. But, as you are probably just another Blanicky sock, you probably already know that. --Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Blanicky. Not only 1 person can have the same views. This is just another proof, that you have probably psychical problems, paranoia (Blanicky and his socks) and hatred (to Czechia). I'm going to Czech beer in the he Republic was a republic that is the Republic today and coughing on your consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.101 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Eswatini, formerly Swaziland

Why did you revert my edit on the Eswatini article? It makes more sense to specify Swaziland as a former name than an alternative name for the country. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus on the article is that "also known as" is the appropriate phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you

It is nice to know I am not alone. You have a great history of contributions. Here are some of my public social media links so you see what I do. https://twitter.com/MrHonestySpeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apez86zaTmo&list=PLqBEBR-8paSwBBR-iUk3WBsKOmBaO_Xcm CallMeHonesty (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

List of stage names (2)

Just thought I'd let you know that I have raised the issue of the clean up of List of stage names, where the "People are not listed here" but then are, a matter you have tried to fix at least twice before.

You can help me with a show of support on the Talk page.

Let's hope commonsense prevails and we can clean up this mess!

Thanks

Ozzieboy (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that I've started the cleanup and already I have had my edit reverted!

Ozzieboy (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to it! LOL Thanks. Ozzieboy (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope that the previous reverter pays attention this time. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

All finished I think. It's much easier to read now. Have a look and let me know if that's all that needs to be done. Ozzieboy (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I rearranged a few things for clarity and similarity of criteria. I am a little confused by the last one: "Those who changed their name(s) due to other or unknown reasons: Examples Vondie Curtis-Hall,[12] Betty Huntley-Wright,[13] Scout Taylor-Compton." Is this supposed to be "Those who changed their name(s) before becoming famous" but for whom no reason is known?--Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ubort River

Hello have made the ERROR WHAT MADE REVERT

Now maps use ukrainian real name, which I wrote An article in the English Wikipedia written according to an old source or Russian book. Frankly What good will bring in the article the use of russian fake name of ukrainian village , which is not on the maps I realized a long time ago that you have a disrespect towards Ukrainian real names.

constantly blocking the real name.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I neither respect nor disrespect Ukrainian names, the question of what a place is called in Ukrainian is simply not relevant to what it is called in English. What I respect is English language usage, and I expect any contributions to this site to respect it as well. --Khajidha (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: The name Andriyevychi Andrijevychi Andriievychi (Ukrainian present) is used in the English version of Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andrijevychi,+Zhytomyr+Oblast,+11254/@50.7326911,27.8765271,15.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4729523fe028e98d:0xd0d8c114ed66f136!8m2!3d50.7328792!4d27.8834894?hl=en , Microsoft Bing Maps (Andriyevychi ). in the form of Andriievychi uses Openstreetmap. org, wego.here.com (https://wego.here.com/ukraina/yemilchynskyi-raion/administrative-region/andriievychi--loc-dmVyc2lvbj0xO3RpdGxlPUFuZHJpaWV2eWNoaTtsYW5nPXVrLUxhdG4tdC11aztsYXQ9NTAuNzMzNDtsb249MjcuODg3NTg7Y2l0eT1ZZW1pbGNoeW5za3lpK3JhaW9uO2NvdW50cnk9VUtSO2Rpc3RyaWN0PUFuZHJpaWV2eWNoaTtjb3VudHk9Wmh5dG9teXJza2Erb2JsYXN0O2NhdGVnb3J5SWQ9YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpdmUtcmVnaW9uO3NvdXJjZVN5c3RlbT1pbnRlcm5hbDtwZHNDYXRlZ29yeUlkPTkwMC05NDAwLTAzOTk?map=50.72761,27.89406,14,normal&msg=Andriievychi )

In the English Wikia, the principle is: write the most frequently used translation to the flock. You returned the translation for the Soviet period Then, Ukrainian towns and cities villageswrote in the form of transliteration from the Russian language Now Ukrainian cities and towns write differently in the English language: translating from the Ukrainian name

The reader wants to get the names that he can find on the map in the phone For example, now Apple’s iphone uses Openstreetmap.org (Andriievychi ) It makes no sense to write a fake Russian name when now it is not used maps--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Re 'amongst'

FYI:
Oxford: among — (British amongst)

Webster doesn't even list it.

Best. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And? I heard it used just yesterday. By an instructor at the local community college. It's a common word, 'round these parts. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

NC? Maybe it's a Southern thing. Back in the '70s, I lived in KY for five years, but I don't recall hearing amongst there. (Heard a lot of other things, such as "Do whuht?" & "Say whuht?" – and Lexington pronounced as Lex'-nun, Louisville as Luh'-uh-vuhl, etc. Visited Charlotte a couple times but don't have a clear memory of speech patterns there.

Found this interesting bit on the (UK-based) Oxford blog site (changed to U.S. punct):

"... many authorities (such as Garner's Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in U.S. English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even 'pretentious.' If you are a U.S. English speaker, therefore, and you don’t want to come across to your audience as out of date or, heaven forbid, linguistically la-di-da, then it’s advisable to opt for among."

And we can't forget this old tear-jerker, covered by numerous vocalists. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I usually hear amongst used for people: "takk amongst yourselves", "he was lost amongst the crowd. Therefore, "among my souvenirs" sounds right to me. It probably is a Southern thing, and you might get funny looks in NY or CA and total acceptance in NC and GA. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I'd forgotten what a great voice Connie Francis had – rather like Patsy Cline. Later. Sca (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on both ladies. Fare well. --Khajidha (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: Just remembered the old "Coffee Talk" skits from early 1990s Saturday Night Live used the phrase "talk amongst yourselves" quite often. I didn't think anything of it at the time, as it was a normal usage to me, but did viewers in other parts of the country perceive that as a dated or culturally marked usage? The character was a very stereotypical Jewish woman from New York. Or has the word slipped from usage in the rest of the country in the last 20-odd years? --Khajidha (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm over 70, and I started on my alleged career in journalism when I was in high school (in Minn.). To me amongst has always sounded archaic or affected – or maybe vaguely humorous. (Afraid I don't remember those SNL skits.) So, another precinct heard from .... – Sca (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulf_of_Odessa&oldid=prev&diff=891717195 Please give a clear explanation. In the past revert (Ubort River} , your answer was an array of words without meaning--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The clear explanation is that the English name of the city is ODESSA. "Odesa" is incorrect in English. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Odessa - there is a transliteration from the Russian name Одесса The English name is for example Prague, then what is unique since it is not transliteration Note that Google maps has updated the translation in the English version to ukrainian Ode [S] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Odesa,+Odessa+Oblast,+65000/@46.4598865,30.5717043,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x40c6318a0b864c43:0x129f8fe28cf2176c!8m2!3d46.482526!4d30.7233095?hl=en a instead of russian Ode [SS] a If the translation is created on the basis of backsliteration, it can easily be updated.

You have not paid attention to the source - scientific notes, published in London Those scientific zapіskі there is a quality істочнік  If you don’t like scientific notes - then you need to give this source of information for the examination of the English Wikipedia community - based on the criteria, they will give an independent assessment of the source of information. Wrong when revert editing is done from a quality source.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Odessa is not a transliteration. It ORIGINATED that way, but usage has made it fully English by this point. Whether the English form is unique, or derived from Russian, or derived from Ukrainian, or derived from Chinese for that matter, is irrelevant. English usage is English usage. And, as far as Google Maps goes, it is far outweighed by the many other sources that use "Odessa". The English Wikipedia community has already given its assessment: notice that the article is at Odessa. --Khajidha (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Only anomaly I can see is that the Ruskis spell it with two Ss while the Ukrainians only use one. In either case, the pronunciation is the same – and the same in English. – Sca (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: In a cadre of trivialities, it is necessary to emphasize that Odesa is a Ukrainian city and that in 1991 he was freed from the horrors of Muscovite occupation and from the Soviet concentration camp

Also, the Muscovites often say "the Russian city of Odessa" because the inhabitants of Muscovy consider themselves the founders of this city. But this is a lie - the city was a Genoa colony under a different name much earlier than Muscovy was renamed the Russian Empire.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is completely trivial and irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is a Ukrainian city, a Russian city, or even a Klingon city; what matters is that its ENGLISH name is Odessa. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Muscovite occupation nickname in the near future for several years will be thrown into the trash of history.

Every month the truth about Ukraine is won by a lie invented in the Kremlin

You personally want to enjoy the last days and months of false information in the English Wikipedia. --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bohdan, unless and until you can write coherent English, please stay off of my talk page. And, preferably, off of the English Wikipedia. I don't know why you can't seem to understand that Kiev is not a Russian name, is not even a transliteration of a Russian name, but is an ENGLISH name. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Republic

Hi, I think this edit ([10]) is not ok, but please confirm it...Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

Mueller report

Duly in-weighed. Sca (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Now, feel free to weigh in here. Sca (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Prespa Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and I do hope you felt you were heard throughout this process. You came in late in the game, but you certainly made sure to have an meaningful impact! Thank you for these contributions. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

commentary

Mr. (Mrs.) is a soldier of the information war of Kremlin against Ukraine.

For European Wikipedia this is a common occurrence.

He is the element of modern Kremlin policy which is the following: the defense of the false myth invented by Peter the Great that Ukraine = Russia = one people = incomprehensible Russian cultural thought that is united with someone Mr. (Mrs.) gain strength and admit it please.  He was given assignments in the Kremlin to block the truth about Ukraine by any means In order to make sure of this, it is enough to read his aggressive reaction to any attempts to correct the names in the English Wikipedia.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHA! --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you a lot

You are right. This is better english. Sometimes to write correct things, i'm in a hurry.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

it seems Concus Cretus is lasting in vadalism reverting our edit in Czech Republic and Economy of Czech Republic articles. How would you stop him?33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Much of what you keep adding probably does 't eed to be in the article.--Khajidha (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

He likes to rank, so ranking is good about all data. Thank you a lot.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

difining reliable sources

Hello at You Learn, somebody reverted an edit I made under a 23 IP address where I cited whosampled, who carefully analyzes songs to pick out samples. People send in ideas on songs that are samples of other songs, and they have some expert moderators listen to each sample carefully, and they determine if it is usable. I've tried submitting stuff to that site and every single one of my 59 submissions ere rejected because i didn't have enough proof, so I think their vetting process is strong.

Anyway, the whosampled source I put in the edit summary breaks down how You Learn samples a regae song from the early 90's called "Mr. Loverman" by sampling the beat. The same beat according to whosampled appears in the song bitch by meredith brooks. This time it isn't just my ears but experts who who analyze songs tha tusers can bring to their attention, and if the mod experts think it is a sample, then they include it.

All this said, what do you define as a reliable source? Too many people on this website use U.S. university standards to the point where non-scholarly sources are not reliable unless it's BBC or CNN.

I think people at Wikipedia really need to be clear on a solid non-malleable and non-American university standard of reliable, this way we all have a set thing to go by. I am not a yank nor do I know or care about U.S. standards, even though I love the U.S. In Eritera, we call Americans yanks as a term of love, not like how Europeans use the term.

thanks. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources better than that, then don't bother posting it. You REALLY seem to need to read the guidelines on what a reliable source is before you begin adding anything else. I no longer care about your problems with sourcing. Please do not contact me again. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

delusional?

Hello at the talk page for the rankin family, you called me delusional for the section no the non-Canadian Cookie rankin topic thing, explain please. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

my argument at kiev naing

Hello

Do you feel that my argument at Talk:Kiev/naming, where I state that Kiev is no more of a Russian name than Jennifer is a Cornish or Welsh name is valid? Or do you feel there are better examples I could give?

I know I'm not an admin or registered editor, and I do have some gripes with Wiki, namely the gosh darn captcha, but I do believe in the commonname policy. I'm still learning about Wikipedia as I go, and wil lmake mistakes in the future, but I hope you can be with me about my argument on the talk there, as I agree with you. Anyway do yuo feel my argument about Kiev not being any more Russian than Jennifer is Welsh or Cornish is a good example? 38.111.120.74 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semantic drift

You might be int'd in this piece from Harper's. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Why your reversions in the las hour re Eas Timor?

--JerzyA (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Names RFC

Hello, you once provided your opinion on how to sort names on a discussion located here. I wanted to to let you know that another RFC discussion has began since others failed to reach a consensus. If you would like to offer your opinion on this new discussion it's located here. Thanks! AnAudLife (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! Thank you for your response to the RfC! To follow up on that, I wanted to ask whether you would like to provide a categorical opinion in the survey section of the RfC, which you can find here, to make sure your analysis is explicitly taken into account. Thanks again! KyleJoan^talk 12:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Q Disco Inferno (Cold Case)

From your answer it seems to me that I understood that it was a custom, that it was a habit. Did I get it right? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, my point was that it didn't matter whether it was a custom. It's fiction. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, a very last one: then of course I won't bother you anymore. Of course, you are perfectly right to assert that it is pure fiction, it is a fact it is a TV series. Which, however, I wanted to take as a "starting point" for what you rightly say, to relate to the customs of people of Jewish faith at that time, alas unable to find anything. It's a bit bizarre as "research", I admit. Forgive me; but what did you mean by "the particular characters here are said to have done so?" Because that's what sent me astray. Thank you very much, see you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how I can make that statement any simpler. It simply says that the characters seen in that tv show behaved that way in that tv show. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's me again, I promised myself I wouldn't break the boxes anymore. I reviewed the episode, but always to relate to "the real world" as you said, it seems even though through a work of fiction that I have found a sort of explanation rather than an answer. There is a photo in his son's room, I assume it was his Bar Mitzvah, and it is obvious from looking at the photo that religious and private parties were celebrated. Always translating everything into the real world like you said. So you can say that indirectly you gave me the answer. Thank you, if you want to send me back, I'm here. If you want. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a prop photo from the TV show gives you any more of a "real world" answer, but I REALLY don't care about this discussion anymore. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Dragon Society (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JLA (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) 07:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kiev

You undid my edit to Kiev which mainly corrected the spelling of "destruction". You said my edit was unnecessary. Since when is correct spelling unnecessary? --Bejnar (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The "unnecessary" was in reference to your addition of the word "martial". The fact that it was related to war was already abundantly clear from the context. And a wiktionary link was even more unneeded. I didn't even notice the typo correction. --Khajidha (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I saw your name in Recent Changes and recognized it from the USD commodity money episode. It's good to see that you're still around. Happy New Year! BirdValiant (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Kobe-ITN

Khajidha, since you commented on my suggestion, you might be interested in it being re-posted after coordinating with Jay. – Sca (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)