Jump to content

User talk:Ojo del tigre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 May

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Piraro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hogan's Alley. 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) 09:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 June

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Bradley

[edit]

Hi, Ojo del tigre

Wiki about T.Bardley veganism: Bradley has been on a vegan diet for his fights since 2008. He said that he first tried the vegan diet when he was preparing for his fight with the World Boxing Council super lightweight champion Junior Witter. In this fight Witter was knocked down in 6th from overhand right. Bradley won the fight by split decision. After the fight he was proud of the results and maintain his diet. He also said when he is on the vegan diet he feels superior over any athlete who gets in the ring because it gives him energy, and helps with his reflexes and balance.[22][23][24][25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Bradley#Vegan_diet

It's not longer ?

Thanks, --Siekański (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siekański: I updated the information in his article.[1] Greetings. Ojo del tigre (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Levin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Briggs. 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) 10:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Just wanted to give you thanks for your consistent contributions to a number of articles on my watchlist that generally don't receive much effort from anyone besides myself. (Porcupine Tree, Katatonia, List of concept albums, etc) Much appreciated! Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are welcome! I am glad that my editions are useful, I hope in the future to be able to make more significant contributions than just increase lists, when my level of English get better.--Ojo del tigre (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of concept albums, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cynic. 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) 10:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jethro Tull. 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) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Set Your Goals. 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) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walls of Jericho. 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) 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth Crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Throwdown (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) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT

[edit]

Regarding this, see WP:BLPCAT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Crimson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Briggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Dillinger Escape Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extreme music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathcore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coalesce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Botch (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dan Briggs
Sorceress (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Heavy metal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Botch (band)

[edit]

Hi, Ojo del tigre! The following comments are in regards to this edit to Botch (band):

  • I believe you have misinterpreted WP:WEASEL. Shifting the words around the way you did doesn't actually get around the guidelines, in fact it doesn't make any real difference what-so-ever. Both the original version and your version are meant to introduce the list of cited examples. If you have a list of sourced examples, it's not trying to "weasel" around verification. From the guideline's second paragraph: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." The sentence in both forms accurately represents the opinions of the variety of sources provided. It would only be a weasel violation if there were no sources provided.
  • I believe you have misinterpreted WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. You seem to be using this to justify removing broken links. This guideline says to add citation needed tags, not remove content. I would advise you to read WP:BADLINK, which says, "Do not merely delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." Wikipedians are expected to repair dead links, not flat out delete them.
  • I believe you have misinterpreted WP:NOTRS. You seem to be using this to suggest that magazines and books do not qualify as reliable sources of information, or perhaps you subscribe to the idea that all references should be weblinks (as some new editors often do). This is not the case, and in fact print media is often preferred over online sources as print media has a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would advise you to read WP:OFFLINE, which says, "Don't let the fact that a printed book or journal is not available online scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia."
  • It appears you also flat out removed properly sourced artists from this list without explanation. I would like to remind you that editors are expected to be performing edits from a neutral point of view, and not just cherry pick the facts that they personally like over others.

For these reasons, I have undone your edit. Feel free to re-introduce any additional bands to the list, but please do mind the above comments before making further edits to this page. Cheers! :) Fezmar9 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fezmar9: Hello, thanks for the message. I don't have a profound knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'm conscious of their general considerations and I've always striven to apply them in that way. I think that I didn't make myself clear at the edit summary by doing one big edit, instead of doing several changes and explaining one by one what I was taking into account.
I don't have any problem with print media (other than I can't read all of it), on the contrary, if you look at my edits in mathcore and The Dillinger Escape Plan, I've cited Precious Metal extensively which is also sourced in the Botch article. My problem is not what kind of media is used, my problem is with many journalists and revieweres who, instead of directly asking the artists who are their influences, base their critics and reviews on similarities they perceive (or biases they have) rather than facts. I think that many mathcore/metalcore bands can quite readily be said to be "influenced" by another older mathcore/metalcore band (as a matter of fact, bands of any genre) even though the former may never heard of the latter at all. Just to give you an example, Slint has been said to be influenced by King Crimson in two out of three reviews of the last 20 years, but read what bassist Todd Brashear commented about it in 2014.[2] And just the other day, I saw an interview with The Blood Brothers stating that they weren't influenced in any way by Refused, but several reviewers have proclaimed the opposite.[3]
The criteria I followed to remove entries was: 1) Journalists-writers vaguely naming artists as being influenced by Botch, without any direct mention, quote, interview or reference of that(those) artist(s) in specific, and 2) Look meticulously on the web, magazines or books for interviews of these artists naming their influences, and if they did not name Botch, remove them, but if they actually mentioned them, replace their sources. I've used the same criteria for all the "Legacy", "Influence" or "Comments from other musicians" sections that I've expanded (King Crimson, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Porcupine Tree, etc.) just like the way that other featured articles are built, such as Kate Bush and Frank Zappa.
These reasons are why I removed or replaced the entries sourced with the Pop Matters review, which says:

"[...] There is no metalcore or noisecore band alive that is not indebted to Botch: Norma Jean, Between the Buried and Me, the End, the Chariot, Every Time I Die, Underoath, the Devil Wears Prada… the list goes on and on. Yet none of these bands has ever come close to equaling the towering, visceral, grotesque majesty of We Are the Romans."

The introduction to the chapter on Botch within Precious Metal, which says:

"But We Are the Romans lives on as one of the most influential "hardcore" records of the last decade, its jagged grace and terminal discord revered by the likes of future noisemongers Norma Jean, the Used and Every Time I Die [...]"

And the Rockmidgest.com article, which I would never have removed just because its link was dead, and it reads:

"Scan the dial slightly below that radar and you'll find a plethora of other acts like Norma Jean, The Bled, Every Time I Die, The Fall Of Troy, Fear Before the March of Flames and the UK's very own Bring Me The Horizon, acts that may very well have never come into being had Botch not already laid down their considerable blueprints years earlier."

I preserved all the other sources with the exception of The Fall of Troy one because I found another better. I also added the better source needed tags to the entries sourced with the "Revolutionaries: Botch" and "Hall of Fame: Botch" articles because I suspect that they don't have actual quotes or references as well (and I took the time to search articles/interviews of Architects, Breather Resist and Curl Up and Die where they cited Botch as one of their influences to no avail), but I don't have those magazines and therefore I can't verify it.
I think this was a bit of a misunderstanding caused by me. Now, I'm aware that you wrote 99% of the Wikipedia article and I appreciate your effort, I believe it's a great article, but after thinking about the reasons mentioned above, I think it was reasonable enough to remove those artists, and I also think you could have considered Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary because I also spend many days looking for the interviews, checking all of them and, above all, adding new artists properly sourced, so I've decided to revert your edit. However, I'm always open to debate and I really assume your good faith (and I also apologize for my English level, I'm still working on it). Ojo del tigre (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand everything you just said, and these were questions I was asking myself a couple of years ago as an editor. What you're suggesting is a philosophy of what defines history or historical facts. These are questions I think more Wikipedians should be asking and I am excited to know that you are asking them! Also, your English level is pretty good, no need to apologize :)
That being said, what you have provided is objectively an opinion, and it's an opinion that I disagree with. You are suggesting that history should be written and documented only from the people who were directly involved — in other words, the history of Botch should only be told from the band members of Botch themselves. Or maybe you're not going quite as far as to say their entire history, but maybe just how artists chose to write music should only come from them.
History is written as a collection of different perspectives, view points and opinions. For example, most historians would agree that World War II happened between 1939 and 1945. But if you asked 15 historians what specifically influenced the decision to start WWII, you will get 15 different answers. Are they all correct or are they all incorrect? "Influence" isn't as easy to prove right or wrong as the start-and-end dates 1939 and 1945 are. This is why we have "official" and "unofficial" biographies, they are two different perspectives that are equally as important, but for different reasons. As another example Fire and Fury and Trump: The Art of the Deal are both about Donald Trump, but both provide different points of view (positive official first-person & negative unofficial third-person) that are equally as important when talking about Donald Trump.
I also think you have identified a problem of equivocation — this means someone is using one word to mean two different things. I think "influence" can mean different things in different contexts. In one context, it means "I am thinking about Botch consciously as I write this song". In another context, it means "regardless of who Band-X was consciously thinking about while writing music, I see Botch's attitude, style, craft, ideas, sense of humor in Band-X." Both of these opinions are valuable, and both of these opinions shape what we know as history.
I would also argue that "influence" is not a tangible thing. You can't see or it touch it. It can be difficult to understand and write about something that's not solid and real. Everyone can write about the color of an apple, but everyone will have different things to say about the taste of an apple. I think music and influence are similar to taste — everyone is going to say something different about it. It's also hard for people to be aware of their own opinions. Maybe artists are unconsciously influenced by each other, or maybe they experienced cryptomnesia and forgot they even listened to Botch in the first place, so of course they're going to deny it in those circumstances. Let me phrase this idea another way: How much of an influence did your parents have on your life? Would your parents give the exact same answer, or would it be slightly different from their perspective? Which perspective is correct?
I took all of this into consideration when I wrote the sentence the way I did: "Botch's music is said to have had an influence on numerous bands." I felt that this phrasing captured (a) artists who personally felt an influence, (b) music critics who could see an influence from a historical perspective, and (c) it also acknowledged that maybe everyone is wrong. By saying "is said" I'm not suggesting any of this is fact, it's just a collection of different opinions. At the end of the day, "influence" is just someone's opinion since you can't literally measure it. Influence doesn't have an objective ruler.
Maybe I won't change your mind, but I hope I gave you something new to think about :) Fezmar9 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, Fezmar. I'm certainly starting to take those points into account (several of which I didn't initially think of). At the moment, I have no problem with reinserting the entries that I removed in another sentence so that the artists who cite Botch as an influence are separated from what the critics-reviewers say. I have other differences of opinion but for now I think that's it. Cheers!, Ojo del tigre (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Number Twelve Looks Like You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McLaughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Minakakis

[edit]

Thank you for making it a much more keepable article. Someone just needed to put in the effort. I wasn't going to, certainly. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Kudos to you on that edit to The Dillinger Escape Plan. Lots of good information introduced and content fixes. Edits like that make it closer and closer to a true quality article. 10,000 added bytes worth of time into one edit without using a bot is worthy of praise in my opinion. Good work, keep it up, Wikipedia loves you for that! dannymusiceditor oops 13:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man! I've just been trying to do the best for the article within my limited abilities, so it feels good to get some good feedback about it - especially if it's coming from a more experienced editor who is also passionate about music. Much appreciated! Ojo del tigre (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Dillinger Escape Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coalesce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of songs about animal rights

[edit]
Notice

The article List of songs about animal rights has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Huge amount of original research (see edit summary of article creator). Not a single source showing notability of the concept of "songs about animal rights". WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

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. Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of songs about animal rights for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs about animal rights 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/List of songs about animal rights 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs about animal rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Animal rights and punk subculture for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Animal rights and punk subculture 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/Animal rights and punk subculture 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. Yintan  21:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

[edit]

Hi Ojo del tigre,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 04:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion discussion about Hardline ideology

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username PrussianOwl and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Hardline ideology, created by you. Your comments are welcome over here.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|PrussianOwl}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PrussianOwl (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Industrial food

[edit]

Hello, Ojo del tigre,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username PrussianOwl and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Industrial food, created by you. Your comments are welcome over here.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|PrussianOwl}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PrussianOwl (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Firestorm (EP)) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Firestorm (EP).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Gimme Radio) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Gimme Radio.

User:Lapablo while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lapablo}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lapablo (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metal.de, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Thanks for creating Goettinger-tageblatt.de.

User:MJL while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thanks for making this and tagging it right!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MJL}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option Paralysis

[edit]

Why did you do this? The genre was sourced. Robvanvee 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greg Puciato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Patton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Under the Skin and Rosemary's Baby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buzz Osborne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Anderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ojo_del_tigre&oldid=1150183969"