Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruth Peterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks likely. Interestingly, the most recent IP belongs to a hospital. Given the nature of the attacks, well... Favonian (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: A hospital? How unusual... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just wanted to point out the IP was probably Cryx88 in case you were unaware. :D Thanks for dealing with it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ipswich. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...what page where you going to link to in this edit? —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard this. I thought what you were going to link to may have been a guideline or discussion or something directly addressing the edit being reverted by you in that diff so when I revert the same edits, I'll have something to provide in an edit summary rather than just me having to provide an explanation I've provided multiple times. But if it was nothing or you just don't remember or care or whatever, then don't worry about it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousJXD: sorry I missed your message and only notice the one after it. I honestly I'm not sure but if I had to guess I was thinking to WP:EVADE... but not sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the user Oatitonimly is constantly deleting part of the text that has its source. no reason for it other than the fact that he/she is Armenian and doesn't like that the text speaks well about Georgian people. please check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasian_race&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearcanadian (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuclearcanadian: If you think a user's behavior is problematic, address it through discussion or raise the issue on WP:ANI. At this point you are edit warring though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if we have a bit of socking going on with the WP:EWN page? Look at the edits from the IP that reverted the page, and the user Rystar80. Both tried to close or remove the report, and both removed the notice regarding the post on the Edit Warring Noticeboard from the talk page of StealthForce. Is it worth filing a SPI on this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: ANI might be quicker tbh but SPI wouldn't hurt :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Center for Security Policy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is NOT good faith. 1) it removed content without giving a valid reason for doing so, and 2) It introduced deliberate factual errors. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: The deliberate factual errors part was hard to determine. I'd rather assume good faith than hit the vandalism button. If I mistakenly make that assumption, please do feel free to warn the user in question. In this case, I see this is the user who spams categories... I'll deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not who I thought it was at first glance... unless they're using a proxy. I don't see any other vandalism from that IP range related to cartoon pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, my friend. There seems to be some confusion regarding an edit of mine you mistakenly identified as vandalism despite the fact that I thought my edit summary explained the edit rather clearly [1]. The guidelines state that any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm not eager in the least to get into any kind of conflict over this, especially since I think I'm being pretty faithful to the guidelines. Best regards. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@47.55.192.66: Hello there! Sorry about that! I see what you did now: moved the sourced info I thought was missing to a new section at the bottom of the page. That does seem okay to me. Athomeinkobe mentioned breaking it up into smaller edits. If you can, that's sometimes preferred as it lets people revert small edits and add sources where needed (if they're inclined to). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a second look, it appears I initially misread also. Having said that, I think the initial chronological format should be kept, rather than putting details of his high school and college at the end of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it tomorrow if it's not dealt with. よろしくお願い. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: OK, well you have already gone ahead and reverted my work again. You guys do seem a bit trigger happy, and as I said I don't want to get into a edit war needlessly. Does anyone object to me reverting Athomeinkobe's last revert, and then we can start from that point? I don't agree that "the initial chronological format" should be kept as there is very little sourced info. I think putting it a "Personal info" section at the end is a more than workable solution, as that way the little bits of info can be consolidated in one place. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

47.55.192.66 I'll just note that I did that revert before seeing the discussion here, and it was the second time total that it had been reverted (after EvergreenFir had also reverted once. But you are correct that we should avoid any warring over this. I'm going to paste the removed text to the article's talk page, which is also the place where this discussion should continue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just noticed that Hirolovesswords has also reverted IP47's removal of the text. For the sake of simplicity, I have reverted that change so that the article is currently in the shortened form. I am going to paste the entire long version to the talk page, so that we can pick it apart and identify what is (or can be) sourced for inclusion). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are collectively the Wikipedia equivalent of a Rube Goldberg Machine. Sorry guys but you just convinced me to quit Wikipedia. Pat yourselves on the back. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@47.55.192.66: I know how frustrating Wikipedia is and I'm sorry. I think we've got most stuff in the article sourced now. If there's a particular item that's unsourced, point it out and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@47.55.192.66: I am disappointed to hear you feel that way. I see 4 different editors have each reverted you once, so that must be frustrating. On the other hand, both I and one other subsequently undid those reversions. I am also trying to make something happen at the talk page. You raised an important point, and personally I feel like I have tried to help address it in the best manner that I could think of. I echo EvergreenFir's invitation to point out any specific items that you disagree with. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi,i'm from larestan region in Iran and I born in bastak city,I can speak English a little,you edited page larestani people but it was false for exmple:larestani people population:more than 2 million no 2 hundred,I will happy to help you in future about larestani people or achomi language or iranian Salimbastak (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimbastak: Hello! Welcome to the English Wikipedia! Currently the source/URL used for the Larestani population says 100,000. The article Laristan says there are only 55,265. Do you have any reliable sources (a government website would be good) that gives the Laristani population? Even if it is in Farsi or Achomi, we can use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lârestâni people in Iran in the county of LARESTAN , Bastak , gerash , khonj , Lamerd , Bandar Lengeh , parsian and part of the county of Bandar kahmir and bandar abbas and a large number of them are living in the UAE , Oman ,kwait,Bahrain,Qatar Population source: https://www.amar.org.ir/english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimbastak (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no dear, you are wrong. yugoslavia existed until 2002, and serbia-montenegro 2002-2006. please apply my changes there. e.g. in france 98 world cup was yugoslavian team, not serbia-montenegro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.106.48 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@46.161.106.48: if I have made a mistake you are free to revert me, hun. Looking at the article for the Football Association I only saw presidents going until 1992 so I assumed that's when it ended. My knowledge of the area isn't the best so my apologies if I'm in error. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you admitted that you have limited knowledge. At least you are being honest. 175.156.14.63 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adventist Health System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanitarium (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, as a conservative Leftist, you are personally invested in this issue, but please put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update me on your dispute with Evergreen when you are unbanned. This bugger shamelessly and cockily removed my edits and made threats against me while half asleep, I want to know what drivel this bugger is up to this time. Shameless to the core.175.156.170.141 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D: You do not understand WP:NPOV apparently. We neutrally reflect sources and give due weight to their coverage of a topic. NPOV doesn't mean we frame a topic neutrally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it? Am I a Muslim ([2]) or conservative Leftist ([3])? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Leftist of course, as it is the latest version. I understand that according to American scholarly standards, POV is acceptable, but in the rest of the world, we adhere to scientific principles. I implore you once again, to adhere to encyclopaedic standards and stop promoting your biased, POV view. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Go read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, etc. Don't vandalise other people's work by reverting instead of incorporating valuable content. 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? Explain to me what is going on. I don't think Evergreen is Muslim, all evidence points to evergreen being Jewish.175.156.170.141 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]