User talk:Paulandys

Welcome!

Hello, Paulandys, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not cite sources dating from 1966 for what the weather was like from 1981–2010. Sources need to actually contain the data being cited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have great difficulties in seeing how some of the sources you cite support the text in your edit.[1] Perhaps you would like to revise your citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1, I revised my citations, and now I guess, the information of the sources of my cites support the text in my edit.

Thank you for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulandys (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 July 2016‎

That turned out to be a bad guess. Have you tried actually reading the sources you cite?

I noticed that a recent post[2] of your's used the Serbo-Croat word "raspolagatpo" in the middle of an English sentence. That suggests to me that you are using translation software.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my proposal about the editing section. Paulandys (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a recent post[3] of your's used the Serbo-Croat word "raspolagatpo" in the middle of an English sentence. That suggests to me that you are using translation software.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, my native language is Russian, I speak in English at an insufficient level, sometimes it's difficult to construct a meaningful sentence (in this I sometimes use this translator). I apologize for this detail, I hope this does not hurt our discussion.Paulandys (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is that sources need to support the text. You have been citing sources that do not do this. I do not know where you get your information from - but you need to cite the real sources - even if they are in Russian. Citing stuff that you hope covers the topic is a waste of everyone's time.

On an article about a city, we do not need sources to tell us what that classification scheme is - there is an article for the classification scheme.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact of the problem is that about 45-55% of sources on the climate section in the other articles in Wikipedia (do not carry a word-for-word text of the article and highlight the content) are semantic information for the reader passed the link to the source of the article. It seems to me that we have more conflict contradictions in quoting than the objectivity of information sources.

Information about the climate found in the "climate" and it describes the climate of the city or region in which the city is located, but does not describe the city itself. I think education and intelligent man reading the section itself can objectively perceive the information, or by clicking on an external link, he will read all about the climate of the region where the city is and understand everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulandys (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dnipropetrovsk. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for WP:3RR--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[reply]