User talk:Irrevocabile tempus

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polonca Frelih.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polonca Frelih concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polonca Frelih, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polonca Frelih

Hello Irrevocabile tempus. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Polonca Frelih".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polonca Frelih}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Callanecc. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Polonca Frelih, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Could you please include citations or it your additions will have to be removed. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ichanged the page to its original content, since it was vandelised by unsubstantiated claims of an anonymous user. Where are sources about Polonca Frelih being accused of pro-Kremlin bias, Russia Beyond being financed by Kremlin, if your own Wikipedia page states it's financed by RIA Novosti etc....

Alexander Kofman was never head of Donetsk people's republic, only self proclaimed foreign minister. Why you let changes that are clearly false? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Callanecc! There has been a repeated incident of vandalism on a page about Polonca Frelih I created. I had to undo edit by an anonymous user. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Polonca Frelih for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polonca Frelih 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/Polonca Frelih until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.

Firestar464 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Polonca Frelih. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Polonca Frelih does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks! Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Polonca Frelih. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to read up on WP:NOTV. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Polonca Frelih, you may be blocked from editing. Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-) Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Polonca Frelih. Firestar464 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'd really recommend that you stop accusing me (and maybe others) of "agenda," among other things, which is contrary to the idea of WP:AGF. I'm just some guy who popped in from Special:RecentChanges and got involved in this. Firestar464 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonca Frelih. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Please stop attacking the motives of the other editors or you risk losing access to this page. Star Mississippi 02:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

It's okay, don't worry, I made some mistakes when I started editing too. I recommend you to be more careful and attentive when checking your edits. Best regards. 🫡 𝘇𝘂 𝗜𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 Talk to me! 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tea :-) Exactly what I needed. I will definitelly try my best. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonca Frelih

you may not edit closed AfDs. If you feel the deletion was a procedural issue, please file a WP:DRV but note that arguing about the existence of other articles is not helpful to the process. Star Mississippi 13:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people saw it to understand it's about censorship. It lasted for half a year. We proved our point. Long time for a small country. Thank you for being involved in an experiment. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can ban me from editing. All the best! Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonca Frelih) for disruptive editing of a closed AfD.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun. Fortunately you can't erase everyone. It's over. You can not win. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your Talk constructively (and not for threats) or you'll lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 15:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think I mind losing access? You are deleting an article about a person you consider irrelevant and banning fellow wiki editor. How funny is that? I had no illusions about the state of affairs in today's world and expected the article in question to be deleted in a week max, since it speaks volumes on true state of geopolitical affairs. First the article was repeatedly vandalised and finally deleted by an editor with a badge:Supporting ukrainian sovereignity and Azov sign. LOL:-)

A lot of people read this article and I proved my point: relevant articles are being censored.

Moreover arguments for deletion were racist and homophobic. Deplorable combination.

Happy censoring :-)

I already lost access to edit it and you still keep repeating the same threat. I don't mind loosing access. Remember:we are winning the war. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You lost access to edit it because it literally says atop the discussion: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. Contest the deletion via Deletion Review, or move on please. Star Mississippi 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on sounds great :-) Slava Ukraine! Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your edit to Negative binomial distribution has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You please stop. There is nothing wrong with the text that I added. Should you remove the URL (why?), just do it. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop censoring the article. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting attempts to cite yourself and/or your own website is not 'censoring' MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely unacceptable, as the citation directs to peer-reviewed and published research. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is absolutely unacceptable is co-opting a shared resource like Wikipedia for the purpose of self promotion. MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem arguments. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irrevocabile tempus! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Keyword (linguistics) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Keyword (linguistics), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]