User talk:Tataral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ross Ulbricht[edit]

Hello, you have removed the link to Ross Ulbricht's Twitter which I have added. Can you explain it a bit more why you have removed it ? Emil Engler (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe we don't generally link to Twitter accounts in the infobox or external links section, per WP:ELNO. Normally it would be ok to include a link to one "official website" owned by the article subject. I believe he has a website that qualifies as that, and that it would be ok to include it as an external link. --Tataral (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


Barnstar barnstar 2.png Wonderful debater award
Wonderful debate sorry if I sounded rude. I think the majority feel the way you do. Moxy (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal on the MJ restructure[edit]

Salut Tataral, have just seen your proposal on the restructure of the Jackson article. I'd suggest listing all subsections under Life and Career and Artistry rather than just saying there are 10 and 5 sub-sections under each. The way it's presented now could give the appearance that the Allegations section would get more prominence in the article than in actuality. Cheers. Oska (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll do that. --Tataral (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Brexit (cat) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brexit (cat) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (cat) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page[edit]

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Cheers & Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to the Jackson articles lately, so I'm not sure I'm going to involve myself in any debates there right now. --Tataral (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-fascism articles[edit]

I have some pretty serious concerns about your spate of recent edits to the anti-fascism article set. Frankly these massive additions seem an awful lot like an attempt to coatrack an article series of significant current relevance to modern politics into an airing of grievances over something that happened in a country that no longer exists, long ago. There's also issues of WP:DUE and WP:WEASEL with these edits - which your refusal to listen at our point of first contact, Antifa (United States) did little to dispel.

I would very much like to caution you to go to article talk, propose your changes, make your case, and then let other people (and certainly not just myself) have a say before attempting to systematically rewrite the history of resistance to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I caution you against massive blanking/deletion of sourced content that you don't like. If you have any issues with any of the content you need to bring it up specifically on the talk page and state your reason there instead of blanking content. Your previous revert-warring to reintroduce an outdated source instead of a better one is one example of unacceptable behaviour. So far your only activity in connection with the article on post WWII-Antifa movements has been revert-warring withour even familiarising yourself with the content and article history --Tataral (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You were very WP:BOLD. Per WP:BRD having identified multiple problems with your bold edits, I reverted them and started a discussion. The issue with regard to the German source was because I didn't notice that the same words had a different date on them. As I mentioned at the time. Now. Discuss your edits and seek consensus. Because this spree isn't good practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No, you, an editor with no history of contributing to the article in a constructive manner, do not hold a veto over all my edits, to a short article that is at a very undeveloped stage. If you have any objection to any specific content you need to state your reason on the talk page, and we can talk. --Tataral (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you can safely assume that if an article touches on antifascism I've at least been watching it. And my not having been active on it for a while doesn't mean I can't revert an obviously WP:NPOV violating major revision. So again, simply, discuss your edits on article talk and get a diversity of opinions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Antifaschistische Aktion‎; shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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 and 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. You need to review WP:BRD your edits were reverted and discussions set up at talk. Go to talk and discuss rather than edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Thanks for creating Antifa (Germany).

User:Lefcentreright while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Wow! Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lefcentreright}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lefcentreright (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DS alert refresh: AP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, roughly 28 months overdue. Enjoy! ―Mandruss  23:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders[edit]

Hello. I'm 直蔵 from Japan. In your edit of Bernie Sanders citing The Times of Israel, there is a word "dramatically" in the citation. However, when I look into the source now, there is no word in his remark. Can you check by yourself and if confirmed, remove the word please? Or, if there is another source to have the word, please add it as well. I have no right to edit on the page. The citation is now moved into "Foreign relations" in the same section. Thank you. --直蔵 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor added another source to confirm the word. The problem has been solved. --直蔵 (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)