This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, I'm Moriori. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pākehā because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Moriori ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The source states The Army still reportedly treats Manning as a man
... While it is week aka the reportedly
bit, it uses the term treats which is implies how they act in regards to her instead of consider which would be how they think of her. To jump from one meaning to the other seems like synthesis to me.
PaleAqua (
talk) 01:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The Golden Sombrero adds on to the hat trick reference. The previous sentence gave no references and stated players "jokingly" use it for striking out three times. The Sombrero is a bigger hat and the player would have to strike out four times. It adds useful information on how the hat trick is used in baseball and by extension the golden sombrero (three strikeouts = hat trick; four strike outs = golden sombrero). I didn't cite a reference because I figured the link to the Golden Sombrero had references. I am new to this and I don't think I have a user name. 24.252.73.200 ( talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I humbly disagree. It is true that the hat trick is generally an accomplishment, but my interpretation of the article is the context of a hat trick in the sport in which it is used. You did not delete the portion about the hat trick in a negative context, and the golden sombrero is a logical extension. Though I do understand if you do not see it this way. Keep up the good work and thank you for helping make Wikipedia what it is. 24.252.73.200 ( talk) 19:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed a hanging sentence fragment that was not related to the paragraph it was in. You reverted it. Just curious as to why? 208.90.40.114 ( talk) 22:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to my own talk page?
I hope that there was some extraordinarily good reason. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:2014 Oso mudslide, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe you cannot provide any physical evidence as to the exact settlement date of Tauranga and therefore your theory of it being in the 13th century is highly optimistic and inaccurate.
Could you please tell me how it is not constructive? It was well referenced, and provided useful information that could not be found in the rest of the article. 101.169.127.242 ( talk) 05:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Microwaves are known for their use in nuclear weapons".Maybe, but microwave ovens are not
"a single microwave has enough energy to destroy a large town".But hardly a microwave oven
"They can also be used as sex toys...and as a food source".So can combine harvesters, but....
"The religion of Itanimulli worships microwaves a holy deities".
I would like to know what disturbed you about the footnote. The document from the French Government is an official document and is in the possession of Subud France and is in response for inclusion in this list according to the reference. It is a valid footnote giving further information for Subud being on the list. This is a damaging list that the French Government says is not official in anyway. Subud has worked to overcome the wrongful inclusion. I have not removed it from the list as that would be wrong, but instead included the factual information to clarify it. I believe that this is not incorrect as it stood in my version and would like you to undo the removal, if you agree. If not, please tell me as to how this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it help if I uploaded the document itself and then referenced it? I did see the overall reference of the retraction by the French Government but I have the actual document. This is a very strange situation in France and Subud has worked to try and sort it out. They say that the document was not meant to be public (but it was), and has no legal footing but it affects people. Probably some others on this list are not BAD organizations and tarred by this document. I am kind of new at this and ask your help to do this right as I see you have years of experience with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why not as the actual document would be interesting to someone researching on the French Government and "cult witch hunting" to see how they responded to individual complaints (very interesting) but I bow to your greater understanding of these things. I also did not see anywhere the reference as to why some are Red and some are not. I assume that this is that these organizations do not appear in the later document, but this is not explained and possible should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As your an admin, perhaps you could explain: Clearly you disagree with me referring to "reaching a level" of incivility, but what level would you say "FUCK OFF" is on when said directly to two editors? Personally, I would put that on the same level as any offensive profanity, which is at the gutter bottom. Also, being on the receiving end of the "FUCK OFF" comment, would you not say that agreeing to "FUCK OFF" and then suggesting that the offending editor also "FUCK[S] OFF" is a simple way of agreeing to do what the other editor wants? They used the profanity first, so I would think it unlikely that they get offended by a return bat, no? — Cassianto talk 6:49 am, Yesterday (UTC+12)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from your inappropriate use of robllback as you did on the BLP noticeboard. [1] Viriditas ( talk) 02:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Moriori, why did you revert my user page to a 2-year-old version here? Your reversion was unhelpful and I've undone it per WP:User pages. If there's a problem with the contents of my user page, please post on my talk page first; there's a fair chance I'll remove or amend it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)@ Baffle gab1978: FYI, the reason it reverted to a two year old revision is because rollback reverts all continues edits by a user so the revision from two years ago must of been the last time someone other than you edited your userpage - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Lixxx235 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
It's very nice to meet you!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
By the way, mind you explain this use of rollback that restored malformed content and was obviously made in good faith? Please ping when replying. Cheers, Thanks, L235- Talk Ping when replying 05:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What gadgets do you have on? Cheers, Thanks, L235- Talk Ping when replying 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone I know made the recent anon edit to this page using my LAN. However, I would agree with his edit, and not with your edit. If you would check (It's easy, as there are 'Pedia articles to help you) you would see that although all songbirds are passerines, NOT all passerines are songbirds. Was Stephens Island wren a songbird? Unfortunately we shall never really know as they are extinct. However, we can be sure they were passerine. Perhaps you wouldn't mind reverting your edit reversion? -- ALGRIF talk 14:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Millener, P.R. (1989) The only flightless passerine: the Stephens Island Wren (Traversia lyalli: Acanthisittidae). Notornis 36(4): 280–284."So I restored it. If you have better sourcing to say it was not a songbird, then please remove the info, but explain why. Cheers Moriori ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
How is that "unconstructive editing"? Those are the colloquial terms. Educate yourself on the game of hockey. Plenty of Wiki pages list colloquial terms on pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.248.202 ( talk) 08:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Moriori, you improperly reverted my edit. See MOS:NUMERAL. In the sentence, "The steam-generating system will use fewer than 200 valves and only eight pipe sizes," I correctly changed the eight to 8 and explained the change, clearly, in my edit summary. You reverted my change and cited "MOS," but the main MOS does not cover this issue. MOS:NUMERAL says (I copied the formatting, too):
"200 valves and only 8 pipe sizes" are comparable quantities, so they use the same form, either words or numerals, not a mixture. This is consistent with other style manuals, which sometimes say that in the same sentence, numerals and words for numbers are not to be mixed. I am changing the eight back to 8 to comply with Wikipedia's style standards. Holy ( talk) 18:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed a closure to the dispute as most parties seem to have understand the opposing views and simply disagree with them and there appears to be a consensus, as an uninvolved editor I would appreciate you weighing in here. SPACKlick ( talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't remove any information regarding 11th Field Artillery Regiment. Only added very valid information. Please show me where I was incorrect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound4Life ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please cease your counter-productive editing of the article Stephen's island wren, it WAS driven extinct by the lighthouse keeper's cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Cease your erroneous editing of the article Stephen's island wren, your knowledge of it is bad and you should feel bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Cease erroneously editing the article Stephen's island wren you are wrong it WAS driven to extinction by the lighthouse keeper's cat https://sites.google.com/site/qitranscripts//transcripts/2x02 go to the bottom of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the person who made the edit that you reversed, though I was not logged in at the time I made it.
The °C->°F temperature conversion formula for a single specific temperature is "F=1.8*C+32". This works correctly for a statement such as "right now, the temperature is 12°C (54°F) outside". But it does not work properly when you are calculating a temperature interval (either drop or rise), so "the end of the race will be 12°C (54°F) cooler than the start" is a mathematically incorrect statement. It's a bit easier to see when the C value is '0': "the end of the race will be 0°C (32°F) cooler than the start" is what you would see if the normal formula is used.
The correct formula for temperature interval conversion is "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)", which drops the "+32" portion of the standard formula since you are only measuring the ratio of C to F for an interval conversion, since the "+32" is simply an offset between the specific temperature "0°C" but has no bearing on the interval of "0°C". Therefore the correct statement would be "the end of the race will be 12°C (22°F) cooler than the start" or "the end of the race will be 0°C (0°F) cooler than the start".
Using the example in the article, if at the beginning of the race it was 21 °C (70 °F), and the expected drop during the race is 12°C, then at the end of the race it would be 9°C (48°F). And 70°F - 48°F = 22°F which is what you'd get from the interval formula "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)" -> "70-48=1.8*(21-9)=21.6≈22", not 54°F as the article originally stated. And 54 - 22 = 32, which is the "+32" part that gets dropped from the normal °C->°F formula when calculating an interval.
I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of articles on Wikipedia that include this type of mistake, not only because the formulas embedded into wiki editor are very convenient to use, but even outside of Wikipedia it's an easy mistake to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capedcadaver ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Just an FYI, in case you wished to comment... I reported 174.23.143.201 for POV-pushing on North American P-51 Mustang by repeatedly changing "African American" to "black". — Josh3580 talk/ hist 00:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Moriori! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, — DerHexer (Talk) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Moriori. Have updated rationale/details of UM photo as you requested. Disappointed they are trying to frustrate the fair use of their logo. 2013Ca55 ( talk) 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OK do what you like with regards fair-use logos. Delete them and disregard the concept of fair-use. I am disappointed you didn't assist in the matter and help find a better fair-use logo for the article to use. I'm calling you a wrecker rather than a contributor. Oh and BTW don't tell lies. Thanks copyright clown! 2013Ca55 ( talk) 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, you are an editor who "prevents ... improving or maintaining" WP. Why? Because you are one who would support the shutting down of a complete support website due to one false claim of image copyright by a bully. Shameful that you subscribe to the misuse of DMCA in order to censor free thought and support for sufferers. Anyway another editor on talk page assisted with the issue, unlike your good self. Perhaps its time for you to quit WP as your actions contradict your quote above. 2013Ca55 ( talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
is profession and professional title. do some reading before reverting. 50.9.97.53 ( talk) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, it's "ballerina", not "balerina".
Secondly, on your talk page I explained my reverts - "I have again reverted your edits to Pavlova, in which you changed ballet dancer to ballerina. If "ballerina" was the norm in English we would have an article with that title. We don't. "Ballerina" is a redirect to our article called "Ballet dancer" because that is the norm in English." There are no articles in this English Wikipedia called ballerina or prima ballerina. Please revert. Moriori ( talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Gadfium and DerbyCountyinNZ: The big thumb scrolling the watchlist has caught me out again, totally unintentional. Sorry Gadfium, and thanks for fixing DerbyCountyinNZ. Moriori ( talk) 07:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! Just a quick note re: this edit: users, even disruptive ones, are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Yes, it does require a brainy editor to check a disruptive user's edit history, but them's the breaks. A completely blank talk page (i.e., one that doesn't have a "Create new page here" notice) is a sign that there has been some talk page activity, and an experienced editor typically thinks to check. On the other hand, when a user blanks his talk page, it is considered proof that he has read the content, and thus that he knows not to be disruptive again. Anyhow, enough of my chatter. WP:TPG for more info. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
[2] British War, British spelling. Regards, W C M email 09:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No edit summary or other explanation makes what is already an improper removal of a comment from a talk page even worse. [3] Please be more careful. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on my talk page a couple of hours ago, in case you forgot to check the watch box (which I often do). -- Trifler ( talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed the table again, since it is unsourced, and WP:NOTSTATS says we don't need lists of everything. I've opened a discussion about it at Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup. For what it's worth, I think it's better off at List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics. Joseph2302 ( talk) 09:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Morioir, Thank you for notifying me about my failure to provide a reason for editing the Yucca page. I noticed the photo for one of the species was erroneous and was originally uploaded to Wikipedia for its correct species, that of an Agave with a similar species epithet. I corrected it on that species page and gave a reason, but rushed to correct the Yucca page and neglected to provide a reason there as well. Lophiomys ( talk) 03:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
On being an admin for 10 years. I placed the first support vote!- gadfium 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I note that you have have reversed my carefully considered placement of Brash's conscientious objection in context, on the paradoxical pretext that a placement in context is supposedly out of context.
Let me explain my logic. Having occasion to review conscientious objection in New Zealand, I went to the list of NZ COs, and then looked at each entry. When I came to Brash, I was bemused to note in scanning page after page of parliamentary politics there seemed to be nothing about conscientious objection. A second scan sometime later, with special attention to the period of his youth (when a man of his age would most likely have been a CO), got me no further, leading me to conclude that allocation to the CO category was either a misunderstanding (it happens) or some attempt at a prank (it happens).I therefore deleted the category allocation.
A day or so later I saw that the category had been reinstated, so I wondered whether someone had now inserted evidence of conscientious objection. Scanning the article once more, but again finding no CO allusion in his youth, I steeled myself to go through it line by line until, buried somewhere towards the end, I found a half-line reference, in a reported speech defending some political action, to his having registered as a CO at age 18, decades previously.
I realised immediately that it was no surprise that I had had to spend so much time digging out the reference buried so deeply out of context, the context manifestly being the chronological stage of his life when he was a CO. As I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be to help people find facts rather than make them obscure, I immediately inserted an appropriate CO reference in its logical context - his age 18 - but left the original reference in its place for anyone interested in the context of his speech rather than conscientious objection per se.
I have always presumed that putting things in context is logical and helpful. Perhaps you could explain your apparent preference for keeping them out of context. Mountdrayton ( talk) 01:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
why? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My editing was HONEST and SINCERE asking the concept of American Left & American Right Politics; including their individual non religious biased parties and non state only parties whilst explaining their policies, politicians and chances of election.
You're a bully
Zeff, Zeff! ( talk) 06:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Zeff, Zeff!
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I dont appreciate your candour and tone of your message regarding Invercargill Airport. Over the last year I have helped expand this article and do appreciate corrections. However as reading here I have noticed that you have attacked other users that you seem to disagree with. I will report this to Wikipedia. ( AlexCherr72] 11:41, 28 September 2013)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ngāi Tahu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
dont edit anymore pls Maikelelel ( talk) 10:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
?????????? Moriori ( talk) 20:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm myanmar citizen.Where are you from? ျပည္ေထာင္စုျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ you wrong And many others burma letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
ျမန္မာလိုေျပာစမ္းပါဟ မင္းျပင္လိုက္တာေတြ ျမန္မာေဖာင့္တလြဲေတြခ်ည္းပဲ ဘိုေကာင္လဲဟ!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a myanmar Moriori. I know my language. Don't Attack me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Good Night.See you! :)[ ေကာင္းေသာညပါ(Good night)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep edit... for your browser fix.
Not for my browser :)
Keep edit... For U.S browsers
Welcome from myanmar! (sorry for my MM(+95) browser fixed.UMZH 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zopic Hadisk (
talk •
contribs)
Thanks for your correction on Māori people for the term "Rohe" in a header. I should have asked the question - what is this? rather than thinking I was correcting a misspelling. Parkwells ( talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blair Tuke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Burling. 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) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Moriori, Thank you for your comments on my Talk page - which I have now deleted, as I felt your comments were an over-reaction. My reason for the initial revert to the edit was that I felt, and still do, that the previous text was correct and acceptable. The reason for my second notice was that the IP was hardly constructive in their comments. There are far too many unconstructive IP "edits" orginating from India. However, if you wish to change, I will have no further objection. Case closed. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 13:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Moriori, thank you for noticing the unconstructive and frankly *racist* comments made by David Johnson, including the threat to ban me for supposedly 'vandalizing' Wikipedia. He has also repeatedly attempted to delete all discussion of the issue from his talk page, terming them an "over-reaction". (Someone has reverted his white-washing attempt for now but I'm sure he'll get rid of all the adverse comments against him soon.) Frankly, I am no English grammar expert and have never claimed to be one, unlike David who makes the laughable assertion that he knows more about the language simply because he was born in the UK. If he claims that everyone born in the UK is an automatic linguistic expert and knows more than any student of the language from elsewhere in the world, I haven't heard of anything more ridiculous. Honestly, I wouldn't have cared about this so much if only he had rejected my edit with a simple explanation of *why* it was incorrect as per English grammar rules (probably too much to expect from an ex sales guy), instead of accusing me of being a vandal, threatening me and claiming to be right simply by virtue of his nationality. As for tarring all Indian users with the same brush simply because some compatriots of mine have supposedly made dubious edits (according to him, whose judgement I can hardly believe at this point), that's just more evidence of his racist attitude. Utterly shameful that new users interested in improving this great resource have to face such editors. No wonder so many contributors are turned off, and the loss is not theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.57.12.242 ( talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed that when an editor makes an outrageously racist comment and then attempts to cover it up, two other editors come to his assistance and you, an admin for 10 years, take no action. It's disgraceful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:David_J_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=690766875
And, I'm afraid, you will note that you're wrong about the syntax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.176.202 ( talk) 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In course of interacting with you just now, I glanced at your user page. Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh; Robert was his brother. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope you will not object; you just gave an IP who had posted seriously offensive vandal images over the user pages of several editors a 24-hour block. In view of the nature of the vandalism I upped the block to one month. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have made numerous cited edits and additions over the last few years to the George Adamski article supporting the skeptical (majority, mainstream) view of his character and career. I noticed that you have also made some edits and comments on the talk page. A new editor, "Wiki0004125", has recently started to add pro-Adamski material (apparently to provide "balance"). The material is cited, but most of the sources are of dubious reliability, such as "UFOTV" and Adamski's own books. I'm not opposed to balancing viewpoints, but in this case Adamski has long since been so obviously exposed as a fraud that I am concerned that this editor's additions are supporting an obviously inaccurate viewpoint. I am particularly concerned with his additions regarding "a government coverup of UFOs," which he writes "some investigators believe continues today", and his claims that some "experts" believe that one of his UFO photos is genuine (sourced to "UFOTV"), and that Project Blue Book reported a UFO sighting around the same time as Adamski supposedly saw a UFO. As you are an experienced editor (I am not), I wanted to bring his edits to your attention, respectfully request that you check them, see what you think, and perhaps revert or edit his changes and additions if necessary. In my opinion, the article before his changes and edits was actually quite good, and certainly a huge improvement over where it was a few years ago. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. 192.154.64.244 ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop bullying me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakehapig ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Short sourced quotations are not copyvio, I hope you understand that now. We have them all over the encyclopedia. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Moriori,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I have referred Mr Maggoo to the Wikipedia:Administrators'noticeboard. You are invited to discuss. WP:ANI Turtletop ( talk) 22:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe ( talk) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Scott Dixon at Baltimore.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Moriori, you may wish to read and comment on my complaint to admins about the IP editor known as "Claudia" at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Duncan Cameron (British Army officer). Your thoughts would be appreciated. BlackCab ( TALK) 04:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to inform you, that your edit unfortunately got deleted again: [4] -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm doing this correctly. You recently sent me a message saying my edit to the DDT page was vandalism, and I'm wondering why that is? The sentence is missing a word at the start, and I tracked back edits until a point where the original sentence was there. Please let me know! Kingofxbox99 ( talk) 22:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)