User talk:MicMicMic

Welcome!

Hello, MicMicMic, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hello. I want to tell to to use article names on wikipedia, and not albanian, but the ones that was agreed on. Also, dont remove kosovo-note without any agreement, it was used as a main and neutral geographical determinant. Please, edit carefully, this area of Wikipedia has very strict and useful guidelines that should stop usage of wiki as a propaganda tool. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, where was it agreed that kosovo-note must be on every article? I have not seen that "strict guideline". Could you provide a link? bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt even said that, but you misrepresented the fact, again. Anyway, i was not talking to you, my dear hounding friend. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers or present them with false consensi.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, the Kosovo note was added without any agreement so I don't see the problem in removing the note without an agreement. Other users are telling us that there has never been such an agreement. Also, this discussion belongs in the articles discussion page and not here. You're not being helpful at all. - MicMicMic (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the articles history and apparently the name of her birthplace was Peja long before I even knew that the article existed. I don't see any reason whatsoever why you would complain about that to me apart from BITING THE NEWCOMERS. FYI, this is my new account that I needed for a common name on all wiki projects. - MicMicMic (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo note was established long time ago, and if one user agreed to it, it can and should be talked upon. Then, i dont understand your comment about "her"? Who is here? What about Peja? I dont get you. Then, you again added this, and without any talk page comment. That is not very good wiki behavior, i must say. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SHE is Majlinda Kelmendi. You're not giving answers to any issues that I am raising and are making this personal instead. I added that (Reoublic of Kosovo) because that was in the original article and nobody ever agreed to change it but it was changed, so I changed it back to its original state and THERE IS A COMMENT ON THE TALK PAGE and I clearly explained that I did so in the summary field of the edit. Please respond to my previous comment with a relevant answer and DO NOT make this personal! Here's the previous comment again: I just checked the articles history and apparently the name of her birthplace was Peja long before I even knew that the article existed. I don't see any reason whatsoever why you would complain about that to me apart from BITING THE NEWCOMERS. FYI, this is my new account that I needed for a common name on all wiki projects. - MicMicMic (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Kosovo note: The note being used is some articles isn't a legitimate reason to use it on every article. If it is relevant to the article than it should be used. - MicMicMic (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Peć was added two years after the creation of article

* Article name on wikipedia is Peć, not Peja.

* Therefor we must use Peć, and not Peja.

* I said that also, if you (or anyone) question usage of that note on some particular article, it should and can be discussed on talk page.

* Please, be calm, i only dont like to see new hot-headed editors to rush in this national questions without any knowledge of past discussions. I am trying to tell you that we have some agreement here, that we follow for years, and that some of your edits are not in line with that. Actually, it is not personal, it is only information. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just dont rush into blind reverts, as you are sure that you are right. We should be able to talk about every single problem in peace. Please, now, ask me, do you have any further disagreement with those things? :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pec was NOT in the original article, then it was added and removed again before I got to the article.

If a note is being used in an article I may discuss it on the article discussion page or on the note discussion page.

I'm very calm. You're making it personal again. Leave ME alone (but you may visit the article's discussion page)!

Some users might have made agreements in the past, but things tend to change with time.

I will make "blind" reverts of BLIND and not previously discussed edits. - MicMicMic (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classical music in Kosovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergey Sergeev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raphael H. Cohen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Principal and Startups (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ipop model

The article Ipop model has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTABILITY; all the sources are just ads for Cohen's talks.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Raphael H. Cohen

The article Raphael H. Cohen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a pile of hype sourced to zero independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]