---

Archives:

Archive

I noticed that you restored an edit to the Liberalism article that is under discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Changes to the lead. It would be helpful if you would join this discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I should've done that, instead of reverting right away. I will correct it. Likeminas (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your caution. It is ironic, however, that the reverting editors are reverting without comment or providing a substantial reason, so it makes little sense to discuss when they will not expand as to why. It is clear that they are doing so due to incomplete English comprehension, sociopolitical POV pushing, ignorance, or any-all of the above. Besides, much of the content in that recently added section is unsourced, so perhaps it should be done away with anyway. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TY. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll be adding material from the Chilean entry throughout the day (I just added the section on Food and Fondas) and I appreciate your review of the new content. Also, there aren't any citations in the original article. If you have time to find citations for the article, that would be great. RG (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Allende's presidency ended with his suicide, not the coupe.Second, Pinochet's government was confirmed democratically before failing in the later plebiscite. To say anything else is a violation of NPOV. Please see talk page--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also request that you refrain from accustaions of vandalism, which is a personal attack WP:NPA.I have left edit summaries and explained my rationale for the edits. For more information on vandalism, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTVAND before bandying around such bad faithed accusations ( or implications).--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know that deleting sourced content as you did here is not a personal attack. It's actually making you aware of a very well established policy. My advice to you is to take the time to read WP:NPA, WP:IDONTLIKE, and WP:RS. By the way, and for future reference, please use the talk page of the relevant article, not mine. Thanks. Likeminas (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the talkpage. This was also used to discuss your accusation of vandalism and POV pushing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggstion. Could we at least agree that the book report doesn´t belong?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Likeminas (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary you left saying to unclutter. The book report is the Irish Times.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can leave that one out since there are other sources that seem to be more authoritative. In regards to the note, I saw it somewhere but I'm not sure how to do it. Do you know? Likeminas (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront has it. I know cause I looked at the other fellow´s edits.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, perhaps you might speak to your coeditor, Frank Pais. His attacks have been downright personal. I reacted poorly to them, and have struck them, but his continued baiting will do nothing to improve the article. If you don´t feel comfortable, then ni modo--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm That's not what I actually meant. I saw an article where several sources where placed under one single note. I think I'll ask in the help desk.

I also saw what you wrote on Frank's talk page, and yes that was way more contentious than whatever he said about your user ID. I will intercede on the talk page of the article but only to discuss content. Likeminas (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough . He had also come to my talkpage and introduced family. But thanks anyway.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to each of your sources individually on the talkpage. When you get a minute, please respond there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time to play games with you. But if claim the sources to be unreliable and whatever that nonesense of confusing the person with the regime means, take it to the RSN board and/or NPOV board. Let me know what they tell you, ok?

By the way, please stop wiki-stalking me. It's just wacky. Likeminas (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is your page, I´ll ignore the attack. I do have a Chilean connection. You aren´t the only one in the world with one. If you feel that you are being "stalked" then go to the appropriate board. You should know the difference between OR and what a source says. I will take it up on the RS board tomorrow. Que descanse y que sueñe usted con los angelitos.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice work with the Pinochet article, *maybe* we could use those references for the spanish wiki article? Please answer in my talk page, I don't watch the enwiki often, thanks.--Kmaster (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted that you can't do what you want to, if you didn't go back there after than discouraging advice, I wanted you to know I have a solution, let me know if this helps.

Here's an example I just worked with the first paragraph of the Pinochet article. The word "fascist" had eight references. I used the new citation style as documented in wp:LDR, and separated each of the references by a line feed. (I also converted the website references to the proper citation style, although I don't know whether the publisher of Google Books references should be Google Book or the publisher of the book).

It isn't beautiful, but it removes the ugliness from the main text, and makes it reasonably clear that the citation is made up of multiple references.

I also added bullet points—does that add or detract?--SPhilbrickT 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I knew it could be done. Thanks a lot for taking the time, I appreciate it. Likeminas (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted at the Pinochet talk page.--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me. Such removal may constitute vandalism. You have fought hard to convince me, and now see to be backing off. What gives?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content is vandalism, not a portal to make a point.Likeminas (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No point. I'm converted. He was a vile fascist. What is your objection?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, It is sourced, by you.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just beware that this kind of behavior might get you blocked. Likeminas (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your threatening and belligerent behavior is beginning to frighten me. Please note that the friendly notice, transparent, open, and neutrally worded is not canvassing. Please just accept that your argument has proven convincing and that a fascist should be linked to the portal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I might do that (re: reporting Die4Dixie). Very good work, BTW, on the Pinochet article. Frank Pais (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless to discuss with Wikipedia editors. They write the history they want. It's better not even to consult Wikipedia and search for unbiased sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Im thinking in the possibility of renaming these articles to "Unidad Popular government" (or "Chile during the Unidad Popular governmnet" or something similar) and "Military government (Chile)" or something similar because I believe the present names on these articles put to much emphasis on the figures of Allende and Pinochet and does not reflect the fact that both were part of larger political structures. "Chile under Allende" sounds like if Allende was behind all policies and actions of his government, while in fact the UP goverment was born from a broad social base and ground level politcal activism rathern than from top to bottom. With so many social movement being affiliated or behind the government it is misleading to say Chile under Allende.

The same applies to Chile under Pinochet, Pinochet was never "a personalist" like (excuse me the comparisons) Stalin, Castro or Perón. Pinochet did not had absolute power over government by him self, rather the junta ruled the country. Of course Pinochet was the "heaviest one" there but to atribute everything to him is wrong, many Chicago boys for example were behind the so famous economic policies of the government rather than Pinochet. If we see the Spanish wikipedia they have and article called Régimen Militar rather than Gobierno de Pinochet.

Well, Im asking about your opinion because I suspect a proposal to move it could cause a large debate.Dentren | ^Talk 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, I'd suggest posting this message on each of the article's talk page, wait for about 1 week to get input and then take it from there.

I wouldn't have any objections in regards to your first suggestion, namely moving Chile under Allende to Unidad Popular government as it was the only government of its kind in Chile. Now moving Chile under Pinochet to Military government (Chile) is tricker as it has not been the only military government the country has ever had.

Lastly, in regards to the claim that Pinochet didn't have absolute power, I would quote him once En este país no se mueve una sola hoja sin que yo lo sepa [1] I assume he wouldn't say that for no reason, but I might be wrong. Likeminas (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently taking a break from anything related to Keysanger. I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol.

Like I told you before, I was truly interested in improving the War of the Pacific article. I wanted to present all point of views in the matter (Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian), and also the international views of other countries across the globe. I was actually interested in all of the information we ended up bringing to the article, particularly the information I found on Great Britain and the information that you found about the United States (Isn't it amazing how these 2 countries manipulated Peru and Chile to destroy each other?). It was quite a productive competition (One side brought their information, the other side brought more information).

Now, the article is a disaster. Keysanger has essentially, and pardon my language, "raped" the article. It's really a shame. All your information, my information, and even the information of Arafael has been twisted or eliminated. I don't want to see that article again as it disgusts me. It's almost as if we had all built this house from the bottom, and suddenly one person comes along and completely changes it to their liking. It's not fair; but there's not much that can be done.

Anyways, now I'm focusing on my studies again. I'll soon be getting my degrees in history and economics in a few years. I'm still editing Wikipedia from time to time, but my focus is by now only on sports (football mainly) and a few articles related to Peru. I hope to see you around Wikipedia again, and if you need any help feel free to contact me.

Best Regards.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent pots at the user´s talk. So that you not be operating unde any misunderstanding. The problem was not with his beliefs; but rather, who he actually is that created the conflict of interest. As is his right, he has chosen to vanish rather than reveal publically the egregious nature of his policy violations. He did not want to be exposed by arbcom, as he knew he had gamed the system and abused the project and been more than disruptive. He was destructive. Had he returned, he would have likely been banned. Everyone who agrees with you is not a good editor. To think so is a lgical fallicy. Now that the disruption is gone, perhaps we can strt anew at pinochet in a more collegial way. I hope you will consider this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always welcome a more mature approach. In all honesty, I'm disappointed and surprised by Frank's departure. He claims he was harassed into making that decision. I hope that wasn't the case. Now, you claim he engaged in egregious policy violations. Who was Frank Pais and what was so egregious about his behavior that merited a COI investigation? Likeminas (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot out him, but us red necks have a saying where I´m from : A hit dog hollers. If I had threatened him or abused him, with my unpopular views and sometimes dickish streak when poked, I´d be banned and he´d be here. You and I disagree about a lot, but I never said you had a COI. Simn223 and I disagree, but I don´t say that he has one. As far as Pinochet goes, make no mistake, I am not trying to create a shrine page or deify him or even say he was wonderful. I also don´t think that the opposite should be made either, just a balanced article. I´m not going to change the picture, But I do expect to have a collegial and honest discussion about it. I think that you have offered that too.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I hate to bring up Argentina's ethnic composition (a never ending drama), but do you know of any conclusions made for the inclusion/exclusion of the Amerindian admixture from the Clarin study? I've re-added it just recently, but it's been removed by two different users (one of course Fercho who backpedaled)- They wrote that they were "Editing section per consensus decision". I can't find a consenus... Dúnadan made very good arguments, but those against its inclusion have yet to do so - Yet they seem to be the "end all". Do you know where I might find the "consensus" if there is one? How would I go about putting it back in? I think it warrants inclusion... C.Kent87 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you went and dug into the talk archive, but the discussion about the genetic study done by the U of B.A. is a never-ending story, and just like the phoenix always raises from the ashes. (see this)

Dunadan makes the best arguments (in my opinion) on why it should be included in the article.

• The genetic studies were conducted by the scientific community, endorsed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina, and are fully verifiable and thus reliable;
• If there are additional studies that may seem to contradict the studies mentioned above, then they must also be fully verifiable and reliable; some users say that the genetic studies have been contradicted, by they have been unable to provide a link or a reference to back their claims;
• The only additional studies presented actually did not contradict the original study, but rather complemented it. Please read the discussion of 21 June 2008, or click on this link to follow the argumentation
• If there are any other equally reliable sources, then by WP:NPOV all sources and all opinions must be stated. 'Hiding information is not NPOV.
• Last but not least, arguing that the articles of United States and Brazil show nothing about genetics studies does not mean that this article shouldn't. If any user is interested in doing so, they can debate the pertinence of including them in the aforementioned articles as well.

Opposition to the inclusion of this information comes from mainly Argentine nationalists who see the study as some sort of shameful ordeal.

I personally don’t have the time or energy to go through the same points again; in my experience they’re will be always a pair of users tag teaming to get the info off the article.

As far as I know there’s no wide consensus, and in case, you can always challenge it. Consensus in not Inmutable.

Good luck, Likeminas (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, al parecer eres chileno por ende te escribiré este párrafo en español. Creo que es hora de sentarnos a discutir dejar de revertirnos, mi deseo es contribuir de la mejor manera a la Wikipedia, si ves mis ediciones siempre respeto las fuentes y discuto mis cambios, pero no puedes decir que uso títeres o cosas por el estilo, además títeres son los que se registran con muchas cuentas para vandalizar, como puedes ver esta es mi cuenta y no creo ser un vándalo, al contrario siempre actuó de buena fe, saludos.--Kusamanic (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tienes razón. No tengo pruebas suficientes como para acusarte de titiritero. La acusación no fue mal intencionada, sino mas bien fue un exabrupto apresurado después de comparar tu historial de contribuciones con la del IP. En fin, retracto ese comentario y extiendo las disculpas correspondientes del caso.

Ahora con respecto a los artículos en cuestión, también estoy de acuerdo en discutir antes de revertir. De hecho, ya he posteado algunos comentarios en las paginas de discusión de Chile, Chilean people y Demographics of Chile. Te invito a que te hagas parte de las discusiones, tal vez así, podamos encontrar algún tipo de consenso.

Saludos, Likeminas (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Requesting Move. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Kusamanic is using an IP number to remove informations from other users. I opened an sock poppet investigation against him. Please, go there:[2] Opinoso (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that Opinoso is not Latin American. He is a biased non Latin American who has become the dictator of Brazilian related subjects, as well as other Latin American subjects, he may even work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. As a fellow Latin American, a Brazilian, I know it is not relevant to us at all whether Chileans view themselves as White or whatever. Biased non Latin Americans project all their racialist agendas at Latin American topics, which is a shame.

Saludos Grenzer22 —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean with "false information"? All the informations are directly taken from the book by Darcy Ribeiro. By the way, I already re-wrote what is written in the book in the talk page of article Chilean people. And yes, Ribeiro describes Chile as a new people and a Mestizo country, and Ribeiro does not deny that:

"(...) the truth is that the Chilean people are a "new people", the result of mixing of the Spanish with the Amerindian. Their origin is the Mapuche Indian. Mestizos from this mixture, absorbing, in turn, more Indian blood because of mestizo-Amerindian marriage, were the ones who molded the fundamental genetic heritage of the Chilean people(...)"

"Chile has never received European contingents in large proportions that would absorb indigenous genetic content or socially overwhelm it, in a condition of inferior caste, under an avalanche of immigrants."

Since you did not read the book (neither the talk page), how can you say I am using "false informations"? Your behaviour is the one leading a block. I'm not obsessed with the subject. I'm obsessed with the reality of Chile, not shown in that article. Be more respectfull and civil. Opinoso (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the source is not reliable, there is a place at Wikipedia dedicated to discuss if a source is reliable or not. However, it's not up to you to decide that a source is not reliable. You have to discuss it on the right place before removing it. To remove sourced informations may lead you to a block. Opinoso (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Likeminas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Remember that you're not the owner of the article. Opinoso (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [3].

Edit warring, blind reversal: [4].

Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [5], but the source is here: [6]. Article ownership.

Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [7]. Article ownership.

Edit warring, article ownership: [8].

Sheer article ownership: [9].

Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [10].

Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [11].

Edit warring: [12].

Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [13].

Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [14].

Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [15]

Edit warring: [16].

Article ownership: [17].

Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

Edit warring: [23], [24], [25].

Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [26].

Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Ninguém (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Please join the report here if you believe you have more evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Opinoso_reported_by_User:Likeminas_.28Result:_.29[reply]

Likeminas (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you wrote about him I do agree. I would like to add something more: he only use this book witten by Darcy Ribeiro. It's some kind of bible to him. The bad news? He fabricates information that is not found in it. He did that with the book and with other sources. See here. Not only that, its quite common to him to take a passage from a book and take it off from its true meaning only to prove his point. And please, don't ask me why he has not been blocked forever so far. This, and the meaning of life are two questions that no one can answer. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that 200.150.39.111 is a sockpuppet of Opinoso and has been used in the past to win an edit war in Chilean people. Ninguém (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That won't a problem for a while. The page has been protected. In any case, let me suggest saving that info in a sandbox so if needed it can be used as evidence. Likeminas (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you was involved in the Chilean people article. Would you like to take a look at the discussion being developed there now? Dentren | ^Talk 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1_Likeminas where are the sources of your writing?, You also added information without references as the user: Opinoso.

2_The most important are genetic studies, after the formation of Chile in its history.

3_It's rude to change the whole basis of an article, when you're trying to reach a consensus.

4_So back to the original information of the article, you can argue the case with an administrator of Wikipedia. It is also responsible to stop the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get blocked, by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, you're welcome to discuss your concerns at the talk of the relevant article. Likeminas (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I agree is a good job, but I think in the heading should be genetic studies, first of all and we must find the sources of what he wrote Dentren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you by the congrats!!! :D --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Farkas….jest to osoba na tyle ważne, aby zasługiwać na artykuł? Co ma ta osoba, że zasłużyły na artykuł w encyklopedii? Moshe-paz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC). Shalom Sabbath Moshe![reply]

Przeczytaj artykul, a takze w jezyku hiszpanskim, a bedziesz mial odpowiedz. Likeminas (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I woul like to suggest you to be more patient with MrWiki he seems to be relavely new [33], but maybe he will learn with time how things work, I mean I have also made simmilar mistakes and still do some. so you have a little by softer edit sumaries (not like this (Undid revision 330123188 by MisterWiki (talk) what is it with that pic that you're pushin it in all articles?)). He seems indeed from his statistcs to have begun an very active phase, so its better to try to guide him than to only revert and warn. Dentren | ^Talk 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. And you're right. I was perpahs a bit harsh with him. In my defense I will just say that my first interaction with Mr. Wiki was to congratulate him for expanding the Pichilemu article.[34] He seems to be a good contributor, but for some reason he's also very dear to that picture and wants to place it in all articles relating to the ethnography of Chile, which I think, is not helping to improve any of them. I did leave a message on talk page regarding that too...Anyway, thanks for the advice Dentren. Likeminas (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish has come true. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there is dispute going on Talk:Chilean presidential election, 2009 about the image of Piñera would you mind to give your opinion? Dentren | ^Talk 18:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take look at the discssion on Talk:Chilean people please.Dentren | ^Talk 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If in my edit summary I say to see my explanation on the talk page, you might wait until I've finished writing it before reverting the article claiming to have read the talk page. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain on the talk page before you revert? just a thought. Likeminas (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in going into the wild and getting away from the city and suburban life in America. Chile looks beyond beautiful. Definitely wish to see Patagonia and Torres del Paine National Park. Anywhere else I should go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.183.217 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of places. It all depends on what you like.

If you prefer warm and sunny weather, the Chilean North is the place to be. But if you like exuberant, breath-taking landscapes, I'd suggest Sourthen Chile.

Look at articles such as Chile, Geography of Chile & Regions of Chile for more reading material.

Cheers.

Likeminas (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Sulmues ^(talk) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hay dear Likeminas go and revert your opinion for “keep” please at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medical_Council_of_India_MCI_Screening_Test as it is now changed and meeting all wikipedia criteria for its continuance. --Bhaiyaji2 (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to disambiguation and is accepted shortform Ulric1313 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitaciones por la propuesta de borrado! Este artículo en inglés ha servido de fuente para el artículo en castellano y me ha costado bastante tiempo y trabajo rebatir las falsedades que en él se afirman. Saludos de Carlesius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.66.252 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

te ruego que la próxima vez leas con cuidado los cambios que reviertes. La mayoría de lo que revertiste son cambios obvios, como el viaje de P. a Filipinas, que fue el 80 y no el 76, los wikilinks a la Law of Permanent Defense of the Democracy, la Massacre of Seguro Obrero y otros cambios que si los hubieses leído los no los habrías borrado. --Keysanger (what?) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Likeminas/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likeminas/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Likeminas/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Shooting of Akai Gurley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/nyregion/new-york-police-officer-fatally-shoots-brooklyn-man.html?_r=0. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]