Sorry did a bit of research and found a wrong source why on internet which let to may changes Silentzrbra ( talk) 8:38 am, Today (UTC+8)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
seems to be evading the block: Special:Contributions/85.105.169.53, Special:Contributions/85.105.170.64 (edit warring in support of user Beshogur). 2003:77:4F10:EA80:61C7:DAD7:ACEA:5759 ( talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Email my DJ Darren Chraplak text to [email redacted] DJ Darren Chraplak ( talk) 06:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign. The end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE ( talk) 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson I did not say that. What I said is that in the past I did an other Article, a (other) person, market for deletion, etc. Not the person you are saying of whom I dont have an opinion at this moment. Please keep communication according to Wikipedia. I only try to contribute to Wikipedia. The article does not have any description from me you mention: "great negotiator," "wise investor," and other praise you've been giving. What it have is experts expressions and the links if read confirm that but dont have any "great negotiator," "wise investor," for no one in the Article. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hello Ian, You recently blocked the above, but they are now evading by using 58.164.22.225 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make themselves a nuisance on Betty Logan's Talk page. I have asked them to stop, but could I leave further action to you please. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
1830, from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.
Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]
General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostubes ( talk • contribs)
Original research is original research, facts and defactos are facts and defactos.
Attempting to refute a fact or a defacto merely because you are a scholarly fellow having spend your life in theological sessions but without any dunk of linquistics, anthropology, or for that matter, wence it has come, does not imply that original research would be research, but merely a defacto.
Wikipedia might not care about scholarly attitudes, then again, what it might not care about is a scholar whom makes presume that all defactos must come from his name, or, a defacto, that it would want all scholars to give them their copyrights, to you, or the ´house´ of copyrights.
If I´m not too presumpcious, a question: Are you Anon, scientiologist, both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Didn't you know? Ceres was discovered by "reverse" astrology! The charts suggested an unseen "planet". Doug Weller did some refinement and "discovered" Ceres! Jim1138 ( talk) 09:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ian,
I have opened a SPI case last week: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. But it seems that i have malfiled it. I have problems regarding my computer and my mobile restricts me for making proper edits. Would you please correct it? Sorry to bother you. Bests. 46.221.203.87 ( talk) 12:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I haven't actually had a threat like that before. Libellous comments, sure. But not a threat. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Request for unprotection: Talk:State of Palestine. -- 219.79.227.218 ( talk) 13:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that there has been a pile-on of MRMs on Megalia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It seems to be less of a mess at the moment. There seems to be much talk about male genital mutilation and other outright misandry. I did a quick look at http://www.megalian.com/ with an admittedly poor Google translation and saw little if anything other then reporting of objectionable transgressions by men. It would seem that someone fluent in Korean needs to check the article. Suggestions? Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 02:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually speak Korean or have any Korean-speaking contacts at my disposal. I just try to digest material through machine translators and googling, etc.
I just wrote up a comment at
Talk:Megalia making pretty much the same point that
Lemongirl942 had already made here. Megalians claim they engage in "mirroring" or mimicking behavior at Ilbe, rather than unprovoked misandry.
As for the kindergarten teacher who posted fantasies over prepubescent young boys (jorini), she later explained she was mirroring, reacting to the common use of the word lorini ("little Lolita") found on Ilbe. [1]
Conduct such as reported in "I secretly filmed my younger or older sister, would you like to see? Controversy of Ilbe authorizing disclosure of family privacy" [2] (cited in Ilbe Storehouse) might easily have prompted some mirroring Megalians into "filming the men's changing rooms/restrooms,..". I'm not sure about what "sharing pics of mutilated penises" is supposed to be a payback for. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 08:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In this edit you said, among other things, "I'd be plenty fine with a longer block if you believe that's necessary", following my comment "I think the only aspect of this block which might reasonably be subject to review is the fact that it is for a limited time." To avoid any risk of misunderstanding, I should like to say that my comment was not intended to be a criticism of you: it was intended to be a message to JasonCarswell about how totally unacceptable I think his actions have been. The one-year figure quoted in the topic ban does make it difficult to block for more than a year for breaching that ban, and if I had done the blocking, I very probably would have done the same as you. I doubt that the editor will be likely to start editing within Wikipedia policy in a year, but if he comes back after the year we can see whether he does edit within policy or not, and if not then a possible indefinite block can be considered.
(Incidentally, the way the topic ban is recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is really rather confused and unclear. It initially says that JasonCarswell "is hereby topic banned from all WP:FRINGE subjects, broadly construed, for a period of one year" (my emphasis), but reading further, one discovers that the topic ban is actually indefinite, and the only thing which is set for one year is the earliest date at which the editor can request that the ban be lifted. That being so, I think that saying that he is topic banned for one year is misleading.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Requesting WP:FULL protection for the article The Exodus, multiple disputes occurring. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 18:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. Some of your recent edits, including ones you made to/regarding Talk:James O'Keefe, do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia0 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I am being reported for adding an external link to an article(what I did actually was adding a nomination link for the image of the person whom is the subject of the article also which is something in fact that must be done since it is not stated anywhere otherwise) I have done and you are judging me for entirely something else and warning me about it but suspending me from changing this article page, this is misuse of authority and abuse of power which can clearly be seen in both of your actions, there is so much wrong here I can hardly bring myself to make a defense for myself by talking to you but instead I should report both of you for "abuse reporting" which I clearly don't. In no place (NONE) such rule is stated. You are obliged to point me to this rule instead of nonsense you point me to there. So please don't give me a response on this if you agree on my declaration here, just undo what you have done on the article and I am OK with the warning you have given me but instead like a compensation for whatever wrong things that I might have said towards him or on the matter, you would be completely right on that which I am sorry about on doing so. Out of context by the way getting reported and warned by superiors and administrators shouldn't even be a thing on a platform which has been founded by an Indian whom still has a caste system in his own country(for God's sake am I right). Hoping that I was able to explain myself clearly this time being calm and all well trying if nothing else, that has to be the reason to why not a single soul was helping me out but ignoring me in the end, it is actually not even my fault being a newbie, trying to learn things on my own here I believe I should be given help on things, even though I be honest and direct at all times and nothing else, alright just mad sometimes a bit, OK a lot. Anyway about this quite long story and any mistyping or misspelling that I might have done and you may had to endure, English is not my mother language obviously with no need of mention of course. Many thanks in advance and as the last thing please do vote for the nomination of the image at least whatever your opinion is on it, it is fine by me, first people that vote think it requires restoration, the image has 4k resolution, has the highest contrast(since it is black and white) might be blurry but it is the only one making it the original, the photo taken the one which is posted there what makes it blurry to my belief, I am no expert but I can say it is in good state for a hundred year old photo don't you think? Peace out. HardMental ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Also m7s - the referee that I conversed with before you - admitted and explicitly stated that "It is not forbidden to edit the article that way, it is just unusual and impractical" this doesn't prove that I am wrong on what I did, you are yet to show me my fault here but there is no reason to turn this in to a mexican standoff, you have the rights to not alter the changes you did, I am just trying to convince you by trying to show you that I am actually fighting the good fight here. Have a nice one. (Forgot to sign a couple of times, hope this fixes it.) HardMental ( talk) 06:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian.thomson. Do you think Rzombie1988 or Anon385385 might be back based upon this edit? Same article which Rzombie1988 was trying to create citing the same pro wrestling blog as a source. The superbalckninja account was created right around the time the others were blocked and has been working on the same types of articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is Aquariusveritas. I don't know if I am doing this correctly but I'll try and see. You wrote me a message asking if the article I have been working on for 8 hours is paid work or indirectly compensated advocacy. The answer is, this is not paid work nor is it indirectly compensated advocacy. I don't know what in my writing makes it appear that way. I recently saw that the choreographer Jacquelyn Buglisi has a Wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Jacqulyn_Buglisi) and I thought to myself, "Why aren't more choreographers and dancers listed on Wikipedia?" With that in mind I decided to try creating pages. This is my first attempt and I am sure that there are many things to be fixed. I've tried to make sure that what I write is correctly sourced and cited so that future dance pages will flow from my fingers easily. If you have suggestions on what makes for better writing I would very much so like to hear your advice. Thank you in advance. I just read that new writing goes at the bottom. I hope that this is correct. Aquariusveritas ( talk) 14:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The definite issue is with the watermark photographs. It took me more than a few tries to understand what the actual copyright means. I always thought that if something had a copyright symbol on it then it was free to use. With that in mind I have absolutely violated the copyright numerous times without understanding what I was doing. At first I thought the images I was using were getting rejected because the images were of low quality so I grabbed photographs from Google Image search. Those images were accepted which made me think I was correct. Then I uploaded a picture I took of the artist from offstage and it was accepted. So I tried to add more and that is when the computer started to tell me that there was an issue with the usage of the images. I would like to replace the images with watermarks especially now that I understand that I am in copyright violation. I am sure that I am repeating myself here but clarity is a good thing so I will ask your indulgence: the image with the two girls and the old man were taken by me. The other images were not taken by me. Should I remove them or avoid editing the page until later as you wrote in your initial message? My final question regards praise and emotion. I have attempted to craft writing that makes use of the source materials I am citing - sometimes directly. I don't think that I am writing in a laudatory fashion but then I am not currently at my most lucid. I am off to bed myself. Thank you for writing and good morning/good night. Aquariusveritas ( talk) 14:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
1llum1nat1 I have used the talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
1llum1nat1 I was of the impression that the talking was to be done on the user talk pages. As such, Fiddler has not responded to me, so it is impossible to develop a consensus. It is no longer relevant, because I'm happy with "The Order of the Illuminati".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 ( talk • contribs)
Dear Ian
An anonymous editor IP# 58.164.106.182 has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour page. You have now placed a block on further edits thereby acknowledging his word as the last word. This may have been vandalism and destructive editing on his part. I would like to appeal.
I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am not an anonymous editor. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.
Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.
After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.
Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.
Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?
I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.
I would request that the anonymous editor be blocked for edit warring.
Warm regards Dipendra2007 ( talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
They are still not getting it [3] [4] [5]. Might I suggest a block via WP:NOTHERE? Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Requesting WP:FULL protection for the article The Burning Bush via edit warring. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)