You just reverted an edit on Antisemitism with an edit summary "As per TP". Everything that has been presented on the TP indicates the frequent use of the term "anti-Semitism". I don't understand the reference. GregKaye12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your concerns but I do not believe that GiantSnowman is behaving in a fair, balanced and just way - his targeting of the Bantams Banter page is for personal reasons and I am just defending my corner, I trust you have given him the same friendly 'word in the ear'? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
"The Zionist pressure group "United Synagogue" has called on all its members to press their constituency representatives to reject the motion or make amendments to it
and that
"Meanwhile, Davis Lewin, the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), has hit out at planners of the recognition proposal, describing them as people who openly want to destroy Israel."
It is very difficult to stop Vandalism on this artile. Is there any way to protect the page form IP user edits for a week? - varma (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your concern. There is no edit war. I have dropped my objection to User:23 editor's edits and they can be safely restored. Upon reflection, I see 23 editor's point. Yours, Quis separabit?19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Users are allowed to completely blank pages that they created. They are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags, except to blank the page, as was the case here. I removed your warning from the user's talkpage, since their edit was valid. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does make more sense that way. The article is on my to-do list. Once I expand it, I will probably outsource the list into a seperate article and go through all incidents, rephrase them and find sources. But it'll need time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother attempting to reason with the IP. The named account is one of multiple socks they have had blocked over the past few weeks - the IP has conveniently neglected to mention the other named accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in 48 Hours. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again, FortunaImperatrix Mundi 1:52 pm, Today (UTC−7)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would say your blame in that particular matter is negligible.
I appreciate the mature fashion you have responded and have every expectation that this was an isolated incident. At this point I don't think the block is preventative and am going to lift it. Happy editing. Chillum19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once the AfD has been raised and commented on, I think it would confuse the system to delete it, so instead I have closed it as speedy keep, recording that you withdrew the nomination. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note individuals who have nothing to say: so they copy other's edit summaries.
I really couldn't care less what other people think. They have their opinions and they're entitled to them, but that doesn't mean I have to agree or care about what they think. TeaLover1996Talk to me ☏10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, I would remind you that not caring what people think in a community such as this demonstrates a phenomenally bad attitude. Secondly, you should care, because if you continue to try and deliberately give editors the impression that you have status you do not have, then that behaviour will almost certainly be sanctioned. And another block so soon after your last would doubtless be more severe. Worth your consideration I would think. FortunaImperatrix Mundi11:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my guess is that this was a some sort of WP:POINT attempt to provoke a reaction from Serbian editors. While I don't have an opinion on these edits one way or the other, it would be quite legitimate to revert them all per WP:BE. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregorB:, Cheers- I was thinking it was probably just being tendentious, but I don't have that specialist knowledge to be certain that it wasn't true or well-sourced. Either way, I'm keeping my eyes open. All the best, FortunaImperatrix Mundi11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I know that I have my article Yassine El Hamida is nominated for deletion, but how is it innappropiate?. Before you delete it, tell me on my talk page. Jamie Welford (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jamie Welford, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think this version is acceptable in terms of WP:UPYES. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's 19, so I don't think that's a problem; and he is trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, even if has some learning to do, so he isn't the sort of Facebooker U5 is really directed at, who is here only to make a user page. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not supposed to be a sandbox edit or what have you, but a real report. My first one in all these years. Please see the history of Zeybeks and the TP.-- Zz (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a content dispute about their ethnicity? Perhaps you want WP:DRN or something, but that board was for reporting individual editors as edit warriors. I can see you've been at it with User:Mendess55, but be aware that the history makes you look to be on similar level- and possibly also that you both logged out to war as IPs! FortunaImperatrix Mundi12:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naah, I use my own account. As for the IPs, I tried to report that, but at the time being, there was not sufficient activity. Maybe I waited too long, because I tried to get a conversation with Mendes55. WP:DRN sounds good, as I do not feel any desire to "punish" him, but it does not address the point here: there are pretty clear standards for references. I guess a third opinion by a "wikipedia official" should help: somebody just telling to please, please, stick to standards of citing sources and to make sure they are reputable. -- Zz (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you meant this edit to go. If it was in relation to the Anders Feder subpage case, would you please move it above the {{DRN archive bottom}} tag, since the case is already closed and it may mess up the archive bot if you don't. If that's not the case you were referring to, please move it to the case where you meant it to go. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Non-admin closures aren't really a part of DRN, indeed, administrators aren't really an essential element to DRN and most of us who work there aren't admins (including me). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure, you might just be being a bit paranoid - there are lots of football editors around, doesn't mean all of them are socks. Maybe re-raise at SPI if you have a particularly strong feeling. GiantSnowman18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Gamesonomy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a user isn't on my list of users I trust doesn't mean I don't trust them, the list is users I will ask questions the most commonly. That is all. TeaLover1996Talk to me ☏21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)</>
[reply]
Hello, just so you know if you think TeaLover1996 is a sock, you need to be able to prove it. Calling someone a sock without evidence can be seen as harassment and per WP:OWNTALK he's allowed to remove anything you put on his Talk page. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Please don't make sockpuppet accusations on talk pages or user talk pages, whether you have evidence or not. To do so is often construed as a personal attack. the only venue for sockpuppet accusations is WP:SPI. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's okay to report obvious duck socks at WP:AIV or on the talk page of an admin familiar with the case. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HiFortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Your diff at AIV did not work, because it was not acutally a diff but a link to a talk page section that had already been deleted. If you want to try an elegant and simple way to create diffs, please consider installing the script at User:Ucucha/duplinks.js. There's also lots of info available at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide as to how to effectively post diffs that will be robust and will be viewable in pop-ups. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TeaLover1996☏12:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best if you two just avoided interacting with each other and that includes not posting on each other's talk pages except for required notices. If another editor is acting out of line, let someone who is uninvolved post an appropriate notice. LizRead!Talk!15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Liz here. You two have been templating each other and hurling accusations and it has to stop. Please get back to improving articles now, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:James Harrington (Yorkist knight) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaLover1996 (talk • contribs) 08:58, June 20, 2015
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TeaLover1996 ☏ 12:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)