Yulia Romero (talk | contribs) →TB: new section |
Ugog Nizdast (talk | contribs) →BJP: Where is the content dispute?: new section |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
{{TB|Talk:Euromaidan#The neutrality of this article is disputed... by 1 user....}} — '''[[User:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Yulia Romero</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) |
{{TB|Talk:Euromaidan#The neutrality of this article is disputed... by 1 user....}} — '''[[User:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Yulia Romero</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== BJP: Where is the content dispute? == |
|||
Hi, I noticed your request at [[WP:RPP]] for the [[BJP]] article. What I don't get is...where is the content dispute? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&curid=149330&action=history The history] shows just three users who have done some serious editing in the past few days...one is me (in fact I made a big blunder which the 2nd user pointed out and I promptly fixed it), then there is the 2nd user who is working on it and most recently, the 3rd who just undid one of their own edit. The only actual reverts were for some anons who kept blanking content, which was the reason I stepped in. I know this is silly but I'm just curious why was this reported at the RPP, have I missed anything big? Sincerely, [[User:Ugog Nizdast|Ugog Nizdast]] ([[User talk:Ugog Nizdast|talk]]) 08:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:42, 17 December 2013
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Delhi legislative assembly elections, 2013
Hi, regarding your recent reverts at Delhi legislative assembly elections, 2013:
- You ask where the BLP issue exists. The answer is that it is an unsourced statement about a redlinked person who may not wish to be even associated with the politics of that party
- Standard election box or not, see this and get consensus, bearing in mind WP:OSE and WP:NPOV.
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also this thread at WT:INB. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't get involved in the above two threads nor in the one at NPOVN that is linked to on the article talk page. Yet you've gone edit warred against consensus. If you cannot see what is undue weight in that infobox then you need to re-read the policy because the issue is not whether similar non-neutral presentations happen on other articles. - Sitush (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Law and order
- Nicolás Maduro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Blackout
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act .
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
Continued edit warring on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice.
It's clear that you are aware of WP:EW by your posts on User talk:Notabede and your multiple blocks for edit warring. That you have knowingly continued the EW is grounds for blocking. I strongly urge you to self-revert. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring at Delhi election article
Please stop your edit warring at Delhi legislative assembly elections, 2013 now. You've had enough chances to discuss and yet even when you belatedly decide to say something it is obvious that you haven't really taken on board the concerns expressed by others ... and you combined your comment with yet another revert, which is practically battleground behaviour. Aside from reading the various discussions, I think that you should revisit WP:NPOV and the spirit of WP:OSE - if the same dodgy situation is happening on other election articles then the correct remedy is to fix those articles, not to make this one similarly defiant of policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Central African Republic conflict
The sources you talk about, when they talk about the coup they talk about the events from March. The overall conflict which started in December 2012 and still continues is called the Central African Republic conflict. The coup was just one phase of the conflict. The new article you created is good, it can talk about the new phase of the conflict. But we need an article that talks about the overall conflict. If you want an article that solely talks about the coup than create one. Otherwise please don't engage in an edit war and discuss the issue on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I get what your problem is, you are in the belief that the conflict that started in December 2012 ended in April 2013 and that a new one started. This is incorrect. There are no sources saying that the conflict that started in December ever ended. It entered a new phase in April but it never ended. And your attempt of an example about the Egypt coup is also incorrect. The Egypt coup was one phase in the overall 2012–13 Egyptian protests. So, I am recommending once again that you create a sub-article of the conflict that will deal with the coup phase. EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the title agreed in the RM, as you well know. If you move it again or alter the wording again to reflect your POV then you will be blocked. This is a friendly warning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Judging by the various threads above, you seem to be edit warring all over the place at the moment. I've no idea why you should wish yo do this because you are not a new contributor to WP. Anyway, I've had to revert you yet again at Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2013 & it is too late here for me to sift through it in order to determine any elements that may have been ok. You're edit summary alone - "out with Dixit!" - was not great and you are well aware of the ongoing discussion about the infobox. If you do this again, anywhere, and I see it then you can expect to be blocked yet again for warring. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No. of BJP candidates
70 candidates !! Link : http://www.bjpdelhi.org/candidatelist.php --182.64.138.232 (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murder in Samarkand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Craig Murray's blog |accessdate=18 July 2008 }}</ref> forms an account of Murray's controversial{{why} ambassadorship at the UK embassy in [[Tashkent]] in 2002–04. The tale explains how Murray
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2013 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to EVM and Harsh Vardhan
- Thai general election, 2014 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to In absentia
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
BLP warning, December 2013
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Revert on Bali Package
Hi. Please see the reasons for my edit on Bali Package (which you reverted), here. -- Pikolas (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
German gov't.
I'm confused by the convoluted path of discussion regarding German federal election, 2013 at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. It seems the topic now is represented by Third Merkel cabinet, and the discussion is closed with only three comments. What's going on? — does this mean it will be posted on Dec. 17?
Agreement to form a "Grand coalition" government was reached nearly a month ago. The ex-journalist in me is dismayed at how long it's taken to get this noteworthy event into ITN. Sca (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
BJP: Where is the content dispute?
Hi, I noticed your request at WP:RPP for the BJP article. What I don't get is...where is the content dispute? The history shows just three users who have done some serious editing in the past few days...one is me (in fact I made a big blunder which the 2nd user pointed out and I promptly fixed it), then there is the 2nd user who is working on it and most recently, the 3rd who just undid one of their own edit. The only actual reverts were for some anons who kept blanking content, which was the reason I stepped in. I know this is silly but I'm just curious why was this reported at the RPP, have I missed anything big? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)