Greeting Timurite, thank you for getting involved. Did you have a chance to read the huge discussion at Talk:Storm kettle#Name of article; indeed it was not the result I expected, but after three weeks there was a consensus. I'm particularly intrigued as to where all these people who weren't involved with the original discussion are suddenly springing from... How did you come across the article(s) in question. (The extra input is welcomed, it's a pity it wasn't several weeks earlier). —Sladen (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend you. I was only trying to undo the mistake, and using the Undo feature was quicker and more likely to be accurate than manually editing out your mistake. I didn't, however, use rollback because I didn't think it was vandalism. You were perfectly welcome to re-add your comment, which you did, so no harm done I hope? -kotra (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article is no original research. See the links. The second one is especially informative in this respect. Denghu (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your move of Seal (device) to Seal (impression) is at least questionable, and should not have been done without discussion on the talk page. "Seal" refers both to the device that creates an impression, and the impression itself. --Jc3s5h (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too came here to question the move. There should have been some discussion–-if for no other reason, then to agree on the target name. I think I would sooner have moved it to Seal (heraldry), maybe something else. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I removed your parallel move request sections from Talk:Seal (impression). The bot that updates Wikipedia:Requested moves only handles one move request per page, and there's already a section on the page for discussing the preferred name of the article. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Timurite, In July you added a (unreferenced-section) tag to the section entitled "Historical revisionism in literature" . The section is a brief description of the book 1984 by George Orwell. I have been looking for a RS to actually quote from but the best I can do is "Sparknotes." But actually it is simply just what Orwell says in his book and I think it would be, could be, appropriately sourced to his own book, 1984. Would you have an issue with that? I would like to take off the ugly tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenia Kirillova, was the discussion of her appearance really necessary? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not the place of Wikipedia to take sides and attempt to adjudicate conflicting legal claims by the the author of the web-page and by Quagmyr (claims which have apparently never come before a court of law), as discussed on Talk:BDSM Emblem. Furthermore, there's very little doubt that the emblem/triskelion concept has achieved wide familiarity among the BDSM community, and in that context, you running around to different article and template pages to suppress all mention of the BDSM emblem in order to predetermine the outcome of the AFD is really not helpful or constructive... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't read my mind, just show me reliable sources. I noticed that certain topics in wikipedia donimated by their fandom. I am not going to struggle fiercely here, since nobody elsee seems care. Timurite (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- your pattern of edits seemed to be clearly motivated by taking the side of Atruerose against Quagmyr in some form of partisan advocacy, and I don't particularly see how that's the way to improve Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you can't take it, then please refrain from dishing it out -- you were free enough in attributing base motivations to Tanos, but when someone dares to question your edits, then all of sudden it's somehow supposedly "disgusting"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were not questioning my edits. You were attacking my alleged motives, my personality. If you don't see the difference, I have nothing further to discuss with you, especially since this was an occasional edit and I have zero interest in the subject. Your continued attack reaffirms my feeling of disgust. Timurite (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have zero interest in the subject then maybe that was a good sign that you probably weren't the best person to try to make significant changes in Wikipedia's treatment of the subject, eh? Don't let the door hit your butt on your way out... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting attitude demonstrated again. Timurite (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have zero interest in the subject, then why not just leave those of who ARE interested and knowledgeable concerning in the subject alone to do our stuff, instead of running around to various pages and deleting stuff you apparently know nothing about in order to predetermine the outcome of an AFD? Or to put it more succinctly, how can we miss you if you won't go away...? AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to know anything. Your obnoxious behavior cannot override basic wikipedia rule: WP:RS. Timurite (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of the subject matter is not a requirement for minor editing (typo correction, etc.) and other technical fixes, but trying to unilaterally impose a semi-major restructuring in a topic area which you have no knowledge of, and no interest in, is unlikely to result in constructive and fruitful results -- and it's exceedingly probable that it will be pretty much a pointless waste of everyone's time all around. Meanwhile, you don't see me running around and adding images and references to the BDSM emblem to lots of different pages in order to try to ensure that the article remains -- which means that in the concrete matter at hand, my behavior is currently a lot better than yours where it really counts... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least thank you that your baseless accusations finally took a civilized form. Still, I have nothing to comment upon your opinion, since it is still a personal attack, although polite. Timurite (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, since you haven't made any attempt (in five replies here) to deny that your edits to article "Triskelion" are made with the purpose of predetermining the outcome of an AFD, you're pretty much admitting to it. AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Please stop smearing my personality in shit and stick to shitty article content to make it less shitty if you want to keep it. Timurite (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you call me "revert warrior who does not see what he reverts" or use similar language, I will report you for incivility. Also, please do not insert unsourced information as you did - it is a gross violation of the Wikipedia rules. Please familiarize yourself with them, as you seem to not have done so.

The original name of the statue in Russian is "Монумент освободителям Таллина", Estonian: Tallinna Vabastajate Monument. Your version is not used outside Russian Wikipedia as an official name, see here. I will revert your edit and insert appropriate sources. I expect you will either come up with sources supporting your version of the name or cease such edits.

--Sander Säde 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timurite for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. --Sander Säde 15:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Castrum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radio Skutnik 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/Radio Skutnik until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. MisterUnit (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]