This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rmhermen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey Rmhermen. The issue here with creating it as a disambiguation page is that the base is still at its incorrect location. McGuire AFB should be moved to McGuire Field, and the page could then have a note added to the top of the article denoting what it also might refer to. Thanks for your help though, and I look forward to working with you! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there was a reason, the convert template was producing a grammatical error that was most cleanly fixed by entering the number and conversion manually. I could have made the grammar work, but it would've been awkward. Is there a reason to strongly prefer convert templates? Tazerdadog (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just you. I think you are confusing Wikipedia's requirement for NPOV editing with non-neutral statements from sources. His writings and criticisms definitely center on "genecides", "killings", "exploitation", etc., (and not milder euphemisms for the same) regardless of whether you personally feel his perspective is accurate of justified. It's caustic language, indeed, but that is part of his notability, if I'm not mistaken. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your version factually states that repression of Native Americans continues to this day. If Churchill has said that, please quote him directly and provide a source. Otherwise, it's POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That was my interpretation too. The difference is between saying "it is so" and saying "he says 'it is so'" 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That should have been the difference, Rmhermen, but it was not. Please review again the diff provided above, which shows a revert of your edit. Your edit did not change the text to read what Churchill says is so, which is what you should have done; instead, your edit changed the text to say what you believe is so. There is a difference. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You have recently deleted my Wikipedia page on Barbara Brunner... which I am a major fan of. I asked her if I may use everything in the public domain. She can tell you herself. Can you please reinstate the page?
You have recently deleted my Wikipedia page on Barbara Brunner... which I am a major fan of. I asked her if I may use everything in the public domain. She can tell you herself. Can you please reinstate the page?
This page was an obvious copyright infringement of the website: Barbara Brunner - Author Interview which clearly states "Thank you for joining us. Copyright 2012. Founded" It is necessary to write articles in your own words. Public domain only includes very old material or material specifically released into the public domain by a legal disclaimer. Rmhermen (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Threatening a user to delete their work because 8 or 9 years later some other user changes the way information is displayed is really poor for editor retention. Better if you want something to fit in this week's super-perfect modern techno format, you do it yourself - rather than trying to force me to change it every few months. After the first dozen times I get asked I no longer want to upload any pictures to this site. In fact, I essentially have stopped uploading images I have created for this reason and I am one of the longest-serving editors and an admin to boot. Of course I doubt anyone will ever check my response to this drive-by tagging. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Broken tables
Tell me Rmhermen... Can you read this text????
"WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text.
Potential causes of the problem are: (a) a bug in the pdf-writer software (b) problematic Mediawiki markup (c) table
is too wide
North American archaeological periods divides the history of pre-Columbian North America into a number of named
successive eras or periods, from the earliest evidence of human habitation through to the early Colonial period which
followed the European colonization of the Americas.Stage classificationOne of the most enduring classifications of
archaeological periods & cultures was established in Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips (archaeologist)Philip
Phillips' 1958 book Method and Theory in American Archaeology. They divided the archaeological record in the
Tradition c. 11,200 BCE - 9000 BCE, California Post Pattern c. 11,000 BCE - 7000 BCE, NW California Folsom
tradition c. 9000 BCE - 8000 BCE Dalton Tradition c. 8500 BCE - 7900 BCE Archaic period in the
AmericasArchaic period, (Archaic stage) (8000 BCE - 1000 BCE)by Time Period Early Archaic8000 BCE - 6000
BCE Plano culturesPaleo-Arctic Tradition 8000 BCE - 5000 BCE Maritime ArchaicRed Paint PeopleMiddle
Archaic6000 BCE - 3000 BCE Chihuahua tradition c. 6000 BCE - c. 250 CE Watson Brake and Lower Mississippi
Valley sites c. 3500 BCE - 2800 BCE Late Archaic3000 BCE - 1000 BCE Arctic Small Tool tradition 2500 BCE -
800 BCE Aleutian tradition 2500 BCE - 1800 BCE Poverty Point culture 2200 BCE - 700 BCE by Location Great
BasinDesert ArchaicMiddle ArchaicLate ArchaicGreat LakesOld Copper Complex c. 4000 BCE - c. 1000 BCE
MesoamericaMexican ArchaicSouthwest United StatesSouthwest: Southwestern Archaic TraditionsArchaic – Early"
I'm hiding on print... you can still view the table... or are you blind??? put some glass please.... when you create a book with that article inside... a book with 400 articles... you just can't create a book... because the render don't work with that table... split the table in two or more parts if you know how to do it and then you can remove the div ........ did you ever try to export as pdf????? I guess no... You know where??? go to Pring/export then download as pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgccgs (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Your edits are not helpful. After your edit, you are merely hiding a problem that no one else will fix. Either fix it or ask for help - don't simply hide it. I can find no examples of your code being used in any Wikpedia article - that alone should be a hint that your approach is not encouraged. No one except you is going to know that the table isn't printing - it might be a workable solution for you but what about the next person who wants the first table in a book? If you don't know how to fix it yourself (try the pages around WP:Tables) but a tag, go to the help desk, find an expert on Wikipedia tables. I am no expert on tables, and I have never tried nor wanted to try printing any article as a PDF. Rmhermen (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes are very helpful what is better.. let me know... book with errors... or book without errors? please answer that first... then this one if someone... are creating a book with this category "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_peoples" ok? and here in this category are 2 articles with erros this one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods_(North_America) and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheDJ/Sandbox) they never know... why the pdf render don't work... don't work because that table is too large.. the pdf don't suport the table. Please try it out. And about that "next person who wants the first table in a book?" is for that .. why i have add this comment "WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text. - When You put a table.. learn how to do it, and try save as PDF after you can save that thank you! (
)" for that people who want the table and who know how to fix it. But you encourage the errors.. and i understand... please try what i ask.. add the category in a book with that article, then add the category without the article.. and you can see the diference.
And i have made donations also... and if i want that div in the article what is the problem.. why you're opinion is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgccgs (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No, the next user is not supposed to have to dig into the article change history. The way you tried to hide it they may never notice that one of the tables didn't print. Just fix the problems yourself or ask for help. And books and PDF are not really high priority. We are a free online encyclopedia, not a print one. Rmhermen (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That is entirely beside the point. Controversial biographical details in particularmust be referenced in the same article in which they are presented. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If you thought it was such a problem you could have added the sources from the main article yourself - and in less time too. Instead you want to Wikilawyer, instead of "Build the encyclopedia". See a problem - fix it. Rmhermen (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You are the person adding the controversial material, so you are responsible for sourcing it. You could've fixed it instead of simply reverting it back into the article. As an administrator, you should know how important WP:BLP is and how important references are. Don't imagine for a second that this is my failure. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your failure and an increasingly common one. Destroy whatever - build little. You saw a possible problem and instead of improving the encyclopedia and fixing it, you chose to delete all the content. Over a piece of content that is not in the least obscure or controversial. I challenge you to consider whether your approach is the in the best interest of growing the encyclopedia and retaining editors. Rmhermen (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP is the most important policy in Wikipedia, and you broke it. As a sysop, you should be setting a good example by properly referencing controversial facts about living people. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Hey there. I totally don't mean to sound like the proverbial WP:DICK here (although I probably will nonetheless), but since this is like the one thing I really care about when it comes to my edits: This edit copied content I'd added to 2011 Waltham murders without giving attribution as required by WP:COPYWITHIN. Obviously it's not a huge deal or anything, but since higher-profile articles like this eventually get used in books and heavily mirrored and everything, I like to know that my contributions, however small, will somehow be noted in the page history. A little edit-summary link to the article you copy from is all that's needed. Once again, not trying to do any telling-off here; I just think that since we have such a great copyleft system at work here, it's important to enforce the few requirements that system entails.
P.S. Even though this is a "hand-written" note, I feel like I'm vaguely in WP:DTTR territory here, since I'm talking to an admin with the same tone I normally use on confused newbies. I apologize if I do sound at all condescending. This is just how I talk when I have my "helpful note" hat on. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. I didn't consider it that large of a piece of text (and I think, partly reworded). Sorry about that. Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You just deleted the talkpage of Corpora spongiosa penes. Would you mind deleting the redirect itself. As I stated on the talkpage I created it under the wrong name. Thank you for your fast reply to my deletion proposal previously. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groningen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University city (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Abolition of Capital Punishment in the United States Video
Hi:
On June 17, 2013 you deleted the Youtube video I inserted on this topic stating "move wrongly placed link again". However, you did not suggest an alternate placement. The video is averaging approximately 1,000 hits per month largely driven by traffic from the link to this page. Clearly, the video is both relevant and of interest to the readers of this page. Since you don't like the link under "States Without Capital Punishment", I think the next best place would be in a box below the table "Death Penalty Statutes in the United States." I would appreciate your advice in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.175 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rmhermen, On 27 September 2004 you added some information to the Aurochs article regarding possible third and fourth domestication events. I know this is asking a lot, 9 years later, but would you still happen to know the sources? Your inserts were:
African cattle are thought to have resulted from a third aurochs domestication event, in this case, the domestication of a second group of aurochs closely related to the Near Eastern ones which gave rise to the European cattle.
The "Turano-Mongolian" type of cattle now found in Northern China, Mongolia, Korea and Japan may represent a fourth domestication event (and a third event among Bos taurus-type aurochs). This group may have diverged from the Near East group some 35,000 years ago.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canada (New France), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
of the New England colonies (~900,000 by 1790) was almost entirely due to the high birth rate (>3%) and low death rate (<1%) per year.<ref>Daniel Scott Smith, "The Demographic History of Colonial New England", ''Journal
[[Scotch-Irish American|Scots Irish]], who had originated in Scotland and settled in Ireland, (Originally came in large numbers in the early 18th century; they preferred the back country and
Sault Sainte Marie]], [[Prairie du Rocher]], and Sainte-Geneviève, Missouri|Sainte-Geneviève]]. The city of Detroit was the third largest settlement in [[[New France]]. [[New Orleans]] expanded when several thousand French-speaking refugees from the
Hi, earlier today you reversed my edits in the crime section. If you clicked on the FBI sources, you must realize that it doesn't actually take you to a page that verifies the stats in the section. Did I use the wrong template? Should I have used [full citation needed] ? Lance Friedman (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The links simply take you to the cover page of the FBI Crime Reports site. This is not a full citation. A full citation is needed that links to the specific stats within the FBI site. The way it is now it would be like me saying the population of Wyoming is 550,000 and just putting census.gov instead of the specific place within census.gov that has the relevant information.Lance Friedman (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Not all databases allow directly linking to data. You can get to the information with one or two clicks. This is normal citation practice. Rmhermen (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This site does allow direct linking. So why not directly link to the page with the relevant information? It seems like the "full citation needed" template needs to be put on these stats. What else is that template for if not for this situation. Right now, once you go to the FBI cover page it not clear at all where you can find the relevant information.Lance Friedman (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plants in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radiation exposure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
You were right to delete it. I deleted it too, but then restored it as a possible mistake because it googled. Before I had a chance to remove the speedy tag, you deleted it again. Then I realized it didn't google that well. Now I'm glad it's gone again. Thanks. You must think I'm bananas. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifeboat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SuperFerry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Talisay City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hey Rmhermen. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
the [[Blue Nile]]. In 2011, over 96% of Ethiopia's electricity was from hydropower.<ref name=solar>[http://isei.org/fileadmin/DATEIEN/Dateien/PV-Industry-ET-04-09-12.pdf Solar energy vision for
Hello, Rmhermen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nellim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inari Sámi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
"Mentally retarded" is the term used by the Supreme Court [2] - and exact wordings are rather important in the legal world. It is not up to us to change it, only to report it. Rmhermen (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK it is your legal system, but you may have to change link from a redirect to the new main article. And eventually your legal system will be using the preferred terminology which is also now part of your legal system as per one of the first citations in the new article. Rosa's Lawdolfrog (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the legal opinion "ATKINS v. COMMONWEALTH" will forever say "mentally retarded". Other laws and other opinions may use different words but that will not change what Atkins says. Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Population Source
I got it from Here. It was taken straight from the census. I don't know how to add references in the Geobox infoboxes. Thricecube 06:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hello Rmhermen. I am sorry about the error to have led to this[3] restoration. Quite simply I was examining each revision one by one whe suddenly I decided to reply without realising there had been later additions. Subsequently I deleted all that followed. It was unintentional. I'll now restore my comments but shall do it the proper way. Thanks. Zavtek (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
BobRayner is vandalising Serb-related wikipages. He simply removes large contents of the article, there is no discussion or agreement. Last example is "Serbs in Romania". I reverted his edit, but he will continue to be uncooperative. 109.106.254.165 (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As things stand, the reverts by Bobrayner meet none of these criteria[4] because you are merely an editor who hasn't logged in/opened an account and even if you are responsible for a number of other edits from other IP addresses, it is obviously not the case with you that the different numbers to materialise each time you log in are your doing, or an attempt to pose as a "different person", you are therefore not a "sockpuppet" (and even if you were, there would have to be a named "puppet master account" for which you account is being used, eg. 'sock of User:IJA' or 'sock of User:Joy', or sock of 11.111.11.11 in IP cases). Now you bare this in mind for future conversation in which you are involved. In the meantime however, and unfortunately for you, Bobrayner is able to edit-war below the radar because his fourth revert comes a long time after the 24-hour mark of the first - it has to be four reverts within 24 hours. The rules suggest that even outside the 24 hours, continued reverting is gaming the system, but this is shady since there has to come a deadline and that official deadline happens to be 24 hours, not 26 hours and 18 minutes. It is worth scrutinising Bobrayner because he does violate the rule from time to time, and it certainly cannot go on for ever. But for now, no luck with this claim. Eastern promises (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Rmhermen, I assume you've been canvassed because you previously cooperated with this sockpuppeteer. There will be more. Lest you be lured into further embarrassment, I suggest reading WP:3RRNO. In the past, other admins have solved this problem by semiprotecting the page. bobrayner (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverting a sock certainly doesn't count towards 3RR. Reverting a sock is a Good Thing. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary if an admin were to block the socks. bobrayner (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello good people :),
Forgive me Rmhermen for not opening an account, the atmosphere here on Wikipedia is rather hostile to say the least. I do not like accounts. I would also like to add that I am not a sock, but who needs evidence, right? Anyway, as you can see from my contributions I have not vandalised a thing (unlike some users here), I even gave constructive criticism.
Oh and boobrayner has once again struk out my comments on page Talk:Kosovo War (not the Zavtek's but the IP's, mine to be specific).
Anyway I've been called vandal, sock and Serb-something, God only knows how much would I last here if I were to create an account. I would probably be reported and banned indefinitely simply for doing what I have been doing so far........and that is trying to reason people and be objective.
TaaTaa 109.106.231.225 (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Instead of standing and watching the socks play, and handing out ominous "final warnings" to those actually dealing with the problem, perhaps you'd consider reverting and/or blocking some of the sockpuppets? I'm not an admin, but my understanding is that admins are supposed to stop disruptive editing rather than prolong it; what is your understanding? bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Bobrayner and Rmhermen, I've had a look at some what's involved here as well as what I've experienced of it through ArbCom clerking. This seems to be a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry from a number of users. Bob, if you have articles which constantly suffer the IP sockpuppetry I'm happy to semi or PC them long term/indef (as a DS enforcement action if needed) as long as they have recent examples of socks and none or very little good edits from non-autoconfirmed users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, some people here would like I was a sock.........but I am not. I just have lousy ISP and sometimes power outages, that is all. :) TaaTaa 109.106.244.168 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mbridge River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The river mouth and sand spit were featured on a 2008 stamp issued by Angola.<ref>[http://www.wnsstamps.ch/en/stamps/AO015.08</ref>
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hello Rmhermen. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.
Can you please tell me if my theory's right or wrong? I don't mind if it's Right or Wrong. DSS Director Lamb sent DSS Agents Alex & Billy to arrest the Mysterious Person, who's exchanging suitcases with Chen at (UN Garage). Chen & Mysterious Person are exchanging suitcases in (UN Garage). Chen & Mysterious Person have been friends for more than 1 year. Mysterious Person knows that (he's/she's) giving Government Secrets to Chen. Mysterious Person knows that (he's/she's) getting Cash from Chen. Chen's a Chinese Diplomat, who has Diplomatic Immunity. Alex knocks out Chen in self-defense. Alex can't arrest Chen because of diplomatic immunity. When Billy's behind Mysterious Person, Billy identifies himself as an Agent, but Mysterious Person intentionally kills Billy by hitting his head against the wall. Alex hears Billy shouting "Help Me" & that's why Alex tries to shoot Mysterious Person in Self-Defense but Mysterious Person intentionally kills Alex. Mysterious Person knew beforehand that Alex & Billy were Agents. Alex & Billy still don't know Mysterious Person's identity. Mysterious Person throws (his/her) Gloves into Trashcan on the Street. When Lamb finds those particular Gloves, those Gloves have Fingerprints that matched Sheridan's fingerprints on Lamb's (employees' files) because Sheridan's 1 of Lamb's employees. Since Lamb found Sheridan's fingerprints on those Gloves, Lamb realized that Sheridan's the Mysterious Person who sold Secrets to Chen & that's why Lamb created Federal Arrest Warrant for Sheridan. The Warrant lied that Sheridan's fingerprints were found in Garage or the Warrant honestly said that Sheridan's fingerprints were found on Gloves.(76.20.90.53 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
I've made a request for comment on the page Talk:List of all war outbreaks during World War II that you have commented on recently so that consensus can be reached as to whether the subject of the page is useful or not and what the future of the article should be. If you don't want to contribute to further discussion, that's fine but if you could add your opinion, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. N4 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for this edit [[5]]. Unfortunately, they were reverted by RedPenofDoom. Dennis Brown resolved the same issues RedPenofDoom is warring about in our favor in 2012. Then he was tag-teaming with an administrator who left the page after she had to revert herself. Unfortunately RedPenofDoom has a new tag team. They threaten to block us and make attacks on us. All the good people have left the page. Can you help us? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of spaceflight records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vladimir Solovyov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Wikipedians who want to do Hamtramck, Michigan photo requests
Rmhermen,
Do you know which Wikipedians are willing to do Hamtramck, Michigan photo requests? There's a Polish editor who wanted photos of Hamtramck public schools.
Your recent editing history at List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. This edit, while constructive, constitutes participating in an active edit war. Note that it does not matter if you personally violate 3RR -- engaging in an active edit war makes you an active participant. Please refrain from such activity until consensus has been reached.Jsharpminor (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is under a heavy blanking dispute. I was about to lock it myself when someone else semiprotected it. Rmhermen (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, yes. Well, I am anonymous user and I contributed to a talk page not even the article itself. And the other user simply deleted my statement. Is that even OK?
I don't know what you meant to link to but what i am seeing is a comparison of the 47 Ronin article and the Kosovo talk page. Not surprisingly they aren't the same. I didn't know that kind of comparison was even possible. Rmhermen (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Son of a........I have no idea, let me try again...:)
For the record lol, I never, ever opened 47 Ronin page on wikia......and I do mean never. LOL
(glitch, hackers, aliens? :P)
TaaTaa 212.178.255.107 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
pv-magazine.com is an unreliable site and it is blocked by edit filter since all links for there are considered as spam. This is also the reason you can not add http in front and call it directly by clicking on it. There is an ongoing discussion for this site at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals where some editors propose partial delisting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for, as it turns out, needlessly getting you to delete the page Refiloe Maele Phoolo. :-\ It was only after looking at the page creator's other edits that I realised they were apparently trying to create a redirect to Cassper Nyovest aka 'Refiloe Maele Phoolo'. Hence I recreated it with the proper redirect syntax. --220ofBorg04:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I see you have restored a set of redlinked list entries with the comment that redlinks are good.
First, let me agree that in some situations redlinks ARE good. For instance, in a scientific article, a redlink to a species that does not yet have a WP article is a good thing: the species can readily be proven to exist, and an article will be welcome when it arrives.
The same is not necessarily true of possibly small, possibly WP:hoax items such as bogs. The function of the list here is to assemble for convenience a way of accessing the existing WP articles on those places which have already been established as notable. Each one should therefore have a bluelink (and probably a citation too). It is therefore inappropriate to include redlinks; articles should be written first, then linked. I'd like therefore to restore my changes, if that's all right with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with your supposed definition of what a list is for - and note that you have removed U.s. national landmarks! Rmhermen (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson:@Ronhjones:
Just out of curiosity, did you look at the articles talk page (and the links there) before declining this speedy? You might disagree with if it's 'highly promotional' as is, but you're basically 'validating' this editors evasion of the actions taken by other administrators. If nothing else, fix the page histories and put it back under the right name, please. Reventtalk06:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solar power in Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyon Township, Michigan. 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.
Hi, I see you've been reverting a bunch of my edits to categories on foods of the Ottoman world. I don't understand your reasoning. For example:
On Spanakopita, you removed Category:Ottoman cuisine and added Category:Kosovan cuisine. I don't doubt that spanakopita is part of Kosovan cuisine, but it is in fact part of the shared cuisine of all the former Ottoman territories. The name spanakopita is Greek and the article defines the food as Greek (which is overly narrow, but can be fixed later), so it is bizarre that the category Category:Greek cuisine (or its supercategory Category:Ottoman cuisine) is gone; but then, precisely the same food appears under other names, e.g. Turkish ıspanaklı böreği. I suppose that for all Ottoman foods, you could list all the formerly Ottoman territories' cuisines: Greece, Albania, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Iraq -- but I'm not sure what the point of that would be. That would be like listing pasta under Category:Cuisine of Lazio, Category:Cuisine of Tuscany, etc., etc. rather than under Category:Italian cuisine.
What's more, in the particular case of Kosovan cuisine, you seem to be reverting back to a POV-pushing editor who wants to add that category to a long list of articles when a perfectly good superordinate category is available.
Besides the detailed problems, there is a more general problem, which is that defining foods as being from a particular country is misleading and ahistorical. These are foods that are shared by pretty much all regions which were formerly Ottoman. The category Category:Ottoman cuisine is much more accurate than listing countries most of which didn't even exist through most of the history of these foods. And along the edges, Ottoman is actually more accurate. For example, I suspect that the cuisine of Transylvania is not very heavily influenced by Ottoman cuisine, unlike that of Wallachia and Moldavia, though all three are parts of Romania. The category Ottoman cuisine captures that in a way that Romanian cuisine does not.
You're obviously an experienced editor (we've both been on WP for about 10 years) and I would really appreciate understanding where you're coming from in all this. --Macrakis (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
100016057/#ixzz3EY0gokyx Mississippi Power unopposed to net metering, eyes 100 MW RE procurement], pv magazine, 11 August 2014</ref> Mississippi is one of only two states, along with Florida, to
I'm not sure why you don't want an Australian park mentioned in the lede. There's a template in the article that explicitely asks for a worldwide view. I would also suggest that National parks in the United States might warrant it's own article, where you can do your thing. Could you make some suggestions on what kind of content you would be willing to tolerate in the lede of National park on that article's talk page, please. --Melody Lavender20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
org/stream/annalsoffortmack00kelto/annalsoffortmack00kelto_djvu.txt Annals of Fort Mackinac]], Dwight H. Kelton, Detroit Free Press Printing Co., 1887</ref>
