Yo Ho Ho
- Copied from my talk page where it was added by User:Fishnagles in appreciation of my removal of spam that they were adding to Charles Manson.
Hello, I'm Fishnagles. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hi RegentsPark. Why did you revert my edit []?
I gave the reasons for the edit which I consider valid.
1) The fact of Tipu's suppression of Mappilas is not contested by any historian/contemporary. It does not fulfil the criteria of controversiality.
2) It is not criticized by any historian/contemporary on moral or other grounds. It does not fulfil the criteria of criticality. Whereas there are sources given in the article which criticizes his persecution of Hindus and Christians on moral grounds.
I can add one more reason.
3) Apart from two blunt statements that "Tipu targeted Mappilas" and "he clamped down on...Mappilas" there is no discussion on it in the entire article. Hence it is not important enough to be included in the Introduction. Whereas nearly 50% of the article discusses his treatment of Hindus and Christians and hence should be included in the Introduction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edithgoche (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly by mistake. I was trying to go far enough back to get the right date of birth and might have removed a meaningful edit. Feel free to add it back (assuming it is reliably sourced etc.). --regentspark (comment) 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
False warning issued
Please have a close look on edits before you issue warnings like you did on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday to me
Original edit with original information: 12:25, 14 October 2018
Linkspam edit by anonymous: 13:09, 8 November 2018
Revert by me: 19:17, 10 November 2018 => you gave me a warning for this
Revert by you including the spam link again: 14:28, 10 November 2018 / 19:53, 10 November 2018
You can not find any information about the customer spend on the linkspam edit...
Seems it's not allowed to post source to where informations originate from.
I hope in the future you take a close look before you issue warnings or make reverts.
- No clue what you mean by all of the above but please don't post links to commercial sites. If you want to use something as a reference, please read our reliable source policy first. Best. --regentspark (comment) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I added a reliable source as cited in many Swiss newspapers, tv stations and so on and also put down some sentences about Black Friday in Switzerland on Wikipedias Black Friday page on Oct 14th (unfortunately, I was not logged in at that time). That source is the most trusted source in Switzerland about Black Friday, you can try to Google it.
Someone else just deleted the reference / source and pasted a commercial link with no added value (13:09, 8 November 2018 ) I tried to revert that, but you chose to delete the original link (trusted source) and revert back to a commercial plattform with no added value. The plattform you reverted to (the link you've set) does not contain any valuable informations for Black Friday in Switzerland.
Sir i'm sorry i forgot to add citations. You left a comment, so, here they are.
- Hi @Xenon One:. I understand where you're coming from and sympathize. However, most reliable sources refer to it as Anti-Sikh riots and that's why we use that term as the title. The riots as genocide is discussed in detail in the article itself and that's where it is appropriate. If you think your sources are strong enough, you should open a discussion on the talk page of the article and get consensus from the rest of the community. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Okay. Can you provide some instructions for that? I didn't knew that there is a talk page even for an article.
See, Pennsylvania, California, Ontario, etc. have all recognised it as a genocide and i think that should be sufficient. But you're saying I should give info from a more reliable source like some global publishers?
- @Xenon One:. Try posting your sources and suggested change to genocide at Talk:Anti Sikh riots. --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message