User talk:Av0id3r

Welcome!

Hello, Av0id3r, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sushant gupta (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Allied occupation of Europe

Civility warning

Please calm your comments down. If you have issue with content of an article or a DYK nom, please state it with respect and kindness...you'll find your comments are accepted a lot more readily that way. Continued ranting will result in warnings of increasing severity. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Please don't remove large blocks of material from any article just to make a point. Fred Bauder 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the diffs, when you are reverting you are at the same time deleting much other material that was earlier deleted by sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned used.Ultramarine 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several propaganda pictures of Stalin in the article presenting him very favorably, so both sides are presented. If there is something wrong with other articles, then please fix them. But possible omissions in some articles is not a reason for introducing problems in a different article.Ultramarine 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back the removed picture and tweaked the text regarding the other statue. If there is somehing wrong with other artciles, please fix them, so all articles are improved. Thanks for your contribution.Ultramarine 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kirill Eskov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

51st Army

Just wanted to thank you for the pic in this article. Where did you find it? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 2057. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to 2059, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

There are two problems here. First because your only source is entirely in Russian, it is not possible for most editors to verify anything you have added to that page. Second because these are at best predictions, it really isn't appropriate to put them onto those future date pages. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred, and I don't see these events meeting that standard. Gwernol 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sole-source problem fixed. Your other points seem disputable to me. However, I don't want to do a respective revert chain. Let those my edits remain my wasted time. Av0id3r (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I shouldn't have referred to your edits as vandalism. My apologies, and I have struck the warnings above. On the question of whether these are notable enough events, it really doesn't matter what I or you think about them. The real test is whether they have been written up in reliable sources. The two (thanks for the second) say that these events will happen. What isn't clear to me is whether these rise to the level of being notable events. The Encyclopedia of Science is a borderline reference for notability, but it isn't peer reviewed nor does it have an independent editorial review process. However, I do believe the second source is an significant improvement, and I will go back and revert my changes. Gwernol 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad:Template:Infobox_Mercury_crater

Ad:Template:Infobox_Mercury_crater

You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]