The Special Barnstar
	This is a gesture of appreciation for your improvement and rewrite of the "OS4 versions" section and other Amiga related articles:) Marko75 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AFAIK AmigaOne models are not software compatible with Commodore Amiga in sense they can not run AmigaOS 1, 2 or 3? Xorxos (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, I recently added the OS note and the newer 500 CR to the Amigaone page.

You've renamed the CR 500 to the name of the 'regular' model, which I find to look a bit odd have two of the same machines, I would like to add something to differentiate the two, could we work something out ?

The note was also removed (the * next to 'OS version' still remanes), could you explaine to me what that table means ? It seems deceptive to me (if thats the right word), as if that is the latest version supported. It is suppose to mean the lowest version supported ?

And if you're the same Palvor of Amigaworld, are you editing in UAE OS4? :)

EVIL-MCDUCK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.63.195 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Yes that´s me, and no, I´m using IE. :-) To your questions:

I removed note about OS versions, because it is not true (eg. A1-SE and minor variants of uA1-C aren´t officialy supported since at least 4.1u2).

As for naming of both A1-500s - yes it looks odd, but we can´t invent our own names for products marketed under distinct name - "AmigaOne 500" in this case. What about "AmigaOne 500 (SAM460cr)" or "AmigaOne 500 (2015)"?

Table is old and I leaved most of original data in place - it certainly lacks consistency.Pavlor (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted table and joined both models, what do you say to my solution?Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting those weird edits on Apple ProDOS and the others again. I reported the user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWordFixer. --Closeapple (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amiga software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amax. 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) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. Wikilinks removed altogther... for now.Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your behaviour against the wrong actions of the indian guy in the talk and and i the article of Great power.By the the name you should be russian or from eastern countries ,that Pavl sounds so)The majority of people in policy and in the academic world considers Italy a great power ( a larger power than Germany and Japan-there should be to argue a lot about how are presented countries in that article- in military and in culture Italy overtakes Germany and Japan; also France and UK aren't different from Italy and are lower in many aspects;Italy has a much better economy than Russia as nominal GDP , net national weatlth and levels per capita;Italy widely overtakes China as data per capita; veto power is today 0 considering that many states act as they like after resolutions ) and another world compared to India at any level))).Thanks again.Benniejets (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benniejets: Hi, I´m Czech, so your guess is as close as possible (we themselves rather say we live in the Central Europe...). I don´t think you will find strong reliable source placing Italy above Germany, Japan or even Russia in hierarchy of Great Powers. Economy and culture are only aspects of Great Power status. Germany has dominant voice in the EU and Russia is able to spectaculary demonstrate its power projection (eg. in Syria). Italy in comparison is not even able to secure its external borders. Pavlor (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor your view is typical of an eastern country (pardon central as you like)the matter is that even the greatest part of academics today are ignorant in military and other sectors.In Science Po Italy is a Great Power.Science Po is used as main reference in the hyerarchy of great powers but Italy isn't cited in the article.Hiding is propaganda.A protestant guy named here Ernio 48 did a lot for propaganda against Italy ( i checked all article past).Above all the democrat american academics in 2000-2012 didn't like at all Italy that had Berlusconi that was linked to Putin.Since the year the wind changed with academics reporting Italy as Great Power in all main places.Syria was russian and is losing it.Italy can invade Lybia (former russian;Russia is fallen in all former colonies )in 24 hours and even hold a nuclear strike able to delete life on Earth.In italian reports and in many other languages reports (french e.g) Italy is generally described as a current official Great Power.It can all against France or UK or Germany or others.Reality today is EU.One thing is propaganda and one thing is reality.All is moved by hidden powers (egyptian masonery ryte in Russia,Brazil,Ireland,Austria,Hungary,Lyon-France -Napoleon was so-,Turin-Italy-Garibaldi was so-,Usa in little part -see Memphis in Tennessee ;here this ryte helped Trump in election-....the head of Russia isn't Moscow but Spb...where are egyptian museums,magia and stanism for istance)and Vatican that is the most powerful being on Earth is in Italy.The article has a low profile.The Pope before being so is Bishop of Rome.Thanks again.Benniejets (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your great work on the SmartPLS page! This barnstar is an appreciation for your thoughtful actions to provide rich and high-quality content on Wikipedia and to find good solutions. Nojokes375 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this commit you stated "Procedural deprod:prior AfD in 2006, new AfD is the way to go"

I don't know what this means. Can you please explain? -Pmffl (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmffl: Hi, it is simple. There was an AfD back in 2006 closed as no consensus (see notice on the talkpage). To cite WP:PROD: By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. Pavlor (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. 2006 was eons ago in terms of web browser history, so that AfD is irrelevant nowadays. But I'll respect the process and do a new AfD. -Pmffl (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About? Commodore went bankrupt in 1996. Implying that it sold Amigas after that is misleading. It has nothing to do with me not liking it, an accusation you have no right to level whatsoever. People might have kept on selling dAmiga or Amiga Mini, whatever those may be, since they don't even appear on google, or AmigaOne, which is not an Amiga in the sense of the article, but Commodore ceased operations in 1994 and most definitely did not sell Amigas past 1996. The Amiga community does much to pretend that the system is still alive; it isn't that I don't like it, I simply don't give a fuck; however, misleading encyclopedia readers is another matter, and we must stop that. complainer 09:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose to continue our discussion on the Amiga article talkpage, where I started new sub section. Pavlor (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check Light Millenium in Great Power article? He is changing without consenus. I'll miss next hours.

Thank you.Trenton444 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trenton444: I will certainly not participate in this edit-war. If the nonsense revision stays for few hours or days, so be it. However, with such rapid edit warring, I expect admin intervention sooner or later. Pavlor (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He forgot 3 r rule and he hasn't broad consensus.Trenton444 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trenton444: Of course... you may ask for admin intervention, but I´m not the right person for edit-warring. Pavlor (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That guy isn't at all clear.Trenton444 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the edit in the Flag of Syria wasn't meant to combine the presidential flags with the non-governmental flags. There was an error in editing. I would request a help with doing so please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:D0B2:EA73:D285:9 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think such major change requires prior discussion on the article talk page. There were edit-wars over much smaller details, so better to reach consensus on this one. Pavlor (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, how do I start this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:C81A:319F:1695:C598 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor: Just a heads-up: a quick look at the user talk page of Раммон shows a perfectly horrifying number of blocks for edit warring and other trouble causing. We need to keep a close eye on that character. Thanks for the support on the talk page for Greta Thunberg. I'm actually sorry I apologised for having reverted the edit; I didn't get the message about the report against me until I had already apologised. In future I'll be more careful.

Thanks,

Cadar (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be sorry. Good manners aren´t a weakness and you acted in good faith. He knows we know about his past, so I don´t expect more disruption of the article (always wearing my rose-tinted glasses...). Pavlor (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, although to be honest, considering the fact that I've just today had to remove a page from my watchlist and dump a dispute in the laps of administrators for mediation, I'm fairly thin-skinned about this kind of behaviour right now. I have tons of things piling up on WP which need doing - including updating a new WikiProject proposal I started - and which you might be interested in, it occurs to me, so here's the link (sorry I don't know how to get working Wikilinks to the project proposal pages) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Climate_Change

Your support there would be greatly appreciated. And I do realise I need to tone down some of the language used there, I wrote it at 2:30 AM last night - one of the things which needs to be sorted. Feel free to pitch in if you like! But I think I need to step away and give Wikipedia a rest for the moment. I'm a little fraught.

Cadar (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your interest in the article. Yesterday is was again turn down due to "Low quality translation or poor English. Insufficient for mainspace publication".[1]

What do you mean by adopt? If you mean edit or rewrite the article where it is - by all means, please do! Dag Erik Hagesæter (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dag Erik Hagesæter: Hi, yes, that is what I had in mind. As your draft is not in the mainspace (yet), I rather did not edit it directly without your prior approval. I will trim the article somewhat (too many unsourced trivial facts) and use both reviews you listed as main sources (I hope my experience with German and Google translate will be sufficient for this task). I will also look for other complementary sources (two multiple page reviews are enough to establish notability, but eg. retrospective view of other sources may be also interesting). As of AfC review, I don´t think we should request another review. Once the article is rewritten, I will probably move it directly to the mainspace. AfC reviewers have plenty of other work to do and your topic is evidently notable enough to survive an AfD. Please, feel free to remind me, if I do not fulfill my promise until the end of the next week. Pavlor (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article was declined again due to the "hardware details are completely unsourced". Could we exchange email address en discuss the article there? I find using Wikipedia for discussing hard. my email is: Dag Erik Hagesæter (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Pavlor (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Comment[edit]

The above template is a pro-forma FYI. It does not imply any problems with your editing. In fact, if you look at my own talk page you'll see that I post the same thing to myself on a regular basis, and try to hand them out to other climate editors from time to time. If you wish to discuss it, just add a note in this thread and I'll be notified via my watchlist. Thanks for your interest in climate change topics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Procedural notices are important, so no one can argue they do not know about DS in this area. Pavlor (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray!! I think you are the first editor to express understanding of this nuance, at least to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pavlor, I recently made a revision to the Kingdom Come: Deliverance page to make the lead article more informative. You have undone this with the message "Already in the article; reverting a good faith edit". I updated the lead section of the article, this section of the article is meant to summarize it's contents. By the sections nature it will include things that are "Already in the article". Let me know your reasons for undoing the edit. -Dave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveTheGood (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveTheGood: Hi, I did not saw that edit as an improvement (change from the "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" was probably a red flag for me). This game has enough controversy surrounding it, no need to add another food for edit-warriors. As "Czechia/Czech Republic" naming has controversy of its own (and passionate editors to support their favourite term), such unilateral change is never a good idea. Pavlor (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pavlor! Thanks again for your help with the Watson (computer) article. I've submitted an additional request to update the page, if you have a moment to review. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, sorry to bother again but I've posted a reply here and hope you may have a moment to revisit. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pavlor. I noticed you have reverted my edit to Member states of the League of Nations about Hejaz as a founding member of that international organization. As far as I know Hejaz was one of the signatories of the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1919. Then by virtue, it can be considered as its founding member.

However, maybe I am wrong on this subject since I did not doing any further study on this field, especially as the history of Hejaz between 1916 until its conquest by the Saudis in 1925 is less studied by international scholars. If you are knowing more about this subject, maybe we can talk about it. I really appreciate if we can share and discuss our knowledge together.

Sincerely,

--Yong-in (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yong-in: Well, that would require quite a good reliable source describing Hejaz as a member (note eg. US signed but not ratified the Covenant and is not considered to be a member of this organisation). Sources used in the Kingdom of Hejaz article state this country signed, but not ratified the Covenant (however, one is primary and the another behind pay-wall and without a page number). If you could provide an useable source concerning Hejaz, we could at least mention its peculiar case in the introduction (like US). Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did some researching and apparently there is no any good reliable source that mentions Hejaz as a member of the League of Nations. I think you are correct, that Hejaz signed but never ratified the Covenant, resulting to the pending membership. One source even refers Hejaz as a "non-member" which I guess indicated the failure of its government to ratify the Covenant at all, probably would never able as the Saudi annexed Hejaz in 1925. There is also not a single document of record about whether Hejaz was active in the League membership before 1932. I think it is better for me to conclude that Hejaz is not a member of the League. --Yong-in (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, thanks for addressing my prod requests. In regards to UAE, just so I am clear: a single page in an obscure published magazine from Czechoslavakia, in which 40 other pieces of software are also mentioned, is enough for notability? Here it is: http://amigareview.amiga.sk/amiga-review-17/ As for Wzonka-Lad, notability standards have changed significantly since 2018. Do articles get automatically grandfathered in if they no longer meet standards (which I assume will change again in the future), so that they will never be eligible for deletion again? Thanks, FrankOlney (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankOlney: As of sources for the UAE emulator, that was just an example there are sources of this kind (Amiga Review is easy to find as there is an online version). There are of course similar articles in other magazines (not even counting coveage of WinUAE, which would be an ideal redirect target, if UAE was not notable enough topic for a stand-alone article). I see you are trying to make a point after your article was declined at AfC, but this is not the right way (some editors may see this as disruptive). From my own experience, computer history related article subjects have lower notability requirements (eg. 2-3 good sources) than eg. articles about companies. Promotional content is a red flag and some editors simply require perfect sourcing for articles obviously created as a vehicle for promotion of some product/company/cause (which seems to be the case of your unfortunate article). As of Wzonka-Lad, it is a well sourced short article. There are two articles in published magazines (at least one with a broad enough coverage), short news on a news site (amiga-news.de could be considered a RS) and one online magazine with unclear reliability (I would not count it as a RS during an AfD). There may be of course far more sources about this emulator, but only small part of published magazines is available online. However, even with this limitation, its coverage is solid. Sure, you can nominate both articles for deletion (AfD), but I think it would be a waste of time.

I created (or co-created) two articles (Olivetti M20 and WestPC 800) and never had any problems with notability of the article subjects (well, I did not use the AfC route). When I write (or rewrite after a prod) an article, I´m looking for at least two reviews in published/online magazines with clear editorial oversight and base my work on them with some short news (again in similar sources) for additional details. Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor:

Thanks, it's still a ridiculous double standard since there was nothing legitimizing a published magazine historically speaking. Just because it printed to paper did not give it more credence than an online article today. Also, what are you talking about re: promotional content for my 'unfortunate article'? There has been no promotional content in any of the revisions of the page.FrankOlney (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

––FormalDude ^talk 08:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Pavlor (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. P.S, there's a handy ds/aware template you can add at the top of your talk or user page to collate them all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Pavlor (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up and adding references to Norton CleanSweep. Not sure how I missed those sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]