User talk:They think it's all over

Welcome

Hello, They think it's all over, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – MrX 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

AfD

Hello,

I noticed your comment on this AfD. To me, it looks like you support keeping the article. Can you explicitly mention this on the AfD, to keep track of support vs delete?

Thank you. --Activism1234 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, noticed you wrote "Keep." It was on the previous line, that's all. In the future, you should probably make spcaing between this, to avoid confusion.

I appreciate your input.

Thank you. --Activism1234 00:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account?

May I ask if you have had any previous accounts on Wikipedia? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I edited briefly as ' King Kong had a Rubber Ding Dong ' - and when that was username was blocked (apparently someone lacks a sense of humor), edited without registering a new account for a while until getting this one. They think it's all over (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"falsification"

Hi there! You say in your edit summary that my edit would be "falsification" of sources since the doc doesn't use the term "Jerusalem". While that is so, the doc does say "1967 lines" which means East Jerusalem in the context of this article. You may not be a very experienced editor yet, I'd like to draw your attention to this guideline that makes co-existence with other editors much easier. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You invented something that was not in the source you provided, and added an untruthful statement to a very contentious article. The source further said 'based on borders predating the six-day war of 1967.' - an amorphous statement which is not the 1967 lines. If you do this again, I'll take you to the appropriate board. They think it's all over (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian suicide attacks

I think you very well know "why" [1]. Now why do you ask? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because you removed something, without giving any explanation. That's really bad form. Some might call it vandalism. Rather than doing that, I restored that relevant content, added a reference, and asked you why you removed it. Why did you remove it? They think it's all over (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you reinstalled it shows you know. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer the question: Why did you remove something without any explanation? They think it's all over (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time, I doubt you'll get a legitimate answer. Depiep has done this with me too, I've been hassled for writing a response on his talk page, with him claiming I manipulated his talk page (a claim that other editors there found bizarre). This seems to be another example of just thinking random things that have no connection, I'd just leave it alone. --Activism1234 22:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partition Plan

Hi there, the version with Flapan's view in the article is the longstanding version, which was agreed after discussions on the talkpage. Therefore, you should restore it. Edit-warring, which is what this edit is, is not acceptable behaviour and may result in unwanted consequences, see WP:ARBPIA. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 RR warning

Yep, I warned No More Mr. Nice guy correctly, that page is under 1RR, he reverted twice. The definition of revert is spelled out already, your definition is not quite what the site's definition of revert is. He did infact , revert twice. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note.... listen, a revert's a revert. If I post something and you remove it , it's a revert.

No More Mr. Nice guy did that twice, on a page that's explicity a 1RR page. BLP's are a noted exception on 1RR pages as is vandalism. The Ip's edit (by No More Mr. Nice guy's admission) was neither, he just didn't agree with it. Therefore he's made 2 reverts. He's been warned. He'll likely be blocked if he does it again. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Casablanca

You reverted my edit and asked why I removed the Cathedral and Temple Beth from the Category: Place Worship. Well, The Cathedral and the Temple are no more place of worship, but they used to be. Now they are just private entities like museums! How do I know? First I am from Morocco, so I know. 2sd, the Cathedral wiki page explains that. So now before reverting my edits, you need to bring your proof! 173.45.200.99 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not just for active places of worship, and includes museums. I suggest you take your issues to the talk page before removing them again. They think it's all over (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Sepsis II reported by User:Ryan Vesey (but everybody is at fault)(Result: ). Thank you. Ryan Vesey 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there. Regarding the current dispute with the template Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s, I just wanted to ask you to please avoid any edit wars over this template while the discussion over the issue brought up by Jokkmokks-Goran is taking place. Even if you strongly disagree with his opinion and find it insulting, it is very important that you'll refrain from edit-warring and instead wait for a consensus-based resolution on this matter (meanwhile, please state which is your preferred option here). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok They think it's all over (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel POV and vandalism

This important information was removed from an article by Pluto2012, despite he is the only one who inserted repeated information about territorial and demographic changes. Perhaps you could restore the missing content and finish this nonsense. For more information see here. Thanks.--200.114.132.240 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestinian territory development

Template:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestinian nationalism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Greyshark09 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROD of IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've removed the PROD tag that you placed at this article. What you said in your rationale, "all sourcing comes from the game developer UBI and/or forum posts" is accurate and it suggests that there are big problems with the article, but a quick Google search reveals that there are a large number of reliable third-party sources that cover the game in significant detail. WP:GNG suggests that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is clarified a little lower by WP:NRVE where it is suggested that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation". This highlights the importance of following WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion.

Anyway it's not a big deal, I just wanted to let you know about this detail since it's not immediately obvious to a new editor. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of NoCal100 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Amalthea 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]