| Revision as of 21:00, 24 June 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 24h) to User talk:Yopie/Archives.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:49, 25 June 2013 edit undoItsAlwaysLupus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users6,225 edits →June 2013: Do not go beyond this point. +rNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| *Read talk page of this article and AfD's. You recreated previously deleted and redirected article. If you will continue in this manner, you will be blocked.--] (]) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | *Read talk page of this article and AfD's. You recreated previously deleted and redirected article. If you will continue in this manner, you will be blocked.--] (]) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| **The AfD decision was that the deleted article shouldn't be recreated ''with the same content''. The new version which you are reverting is not the same content and a lot better sourced, so perhaps it would be better to take it to ]? - ] (] / ]) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | **The AfD decision was that the deleted article shouldn't be recreated ''with the same content''. The new version which you are reverting is not the same content and a lot better sourced, so perhaps it would be better to take it to ]? - ] (] / ]) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ***My only desire is that if my article could bear the deleted article redirect name in order to standardize the series thus help improve the reader's experience in some way. But then again, we could just leave it ], couldn't we? I see it as one of many solutions we can implement to resolve this dispute once and for all. ] (]) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Edit warring=== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:49, 25 June 2013
Thanks Yopie
Hi, I am Guilatshalit, and I wanna say Thank you Yopie for your comments, I hope to improve my articles and keep on editing wikipedia, thanks for your advice , now I will preview my articles before I edit , thank you so much.
Comenius
I did add an edit summary the second time: beginning an article with "was a ___-speaking" is practically unheard of. After all, he could have spoke several languages. His names in those other languages, I removed because I cannot see how it helps the reader to have to read through a list of the same name in several east European languages before getting to the first sentence; especially when interwiki links are available on the side for those who want to read about him in Hungarian or Polish. 216.8.129.17 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi anon, you probably know, that there were German speaking Moravians (ethnic Germans), so we need to differentiate. Names in other languages - we use all names, he use during his life. As he was working in Hungary and Poland, names in Polish and Hungarian are OK.--Yopie (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could Comenius not speak German? Do we have any source showing him using the Hungarian and Polish names shown? I am sceptical on both counts. 216.8.129.17 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comenius was not German speaking Moravian, but Czech speaking, see source in the article.--Yopie (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- That he could speak Czech is not in dispute, but was that all he could speak? 216.8.129.17 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comenius was not German speaking Moravian, but Czech speaking, see source in the article.--Yopie (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could Comenius not speak German? Do we have any source showing him using the Hungarian and Polish names shown? I am sceptical on both counts. 216.8.129.17 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Gdansk vote
- "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names"
Please stop editwarring. The Gdansk vote is absolutely clear about the usage of names. Please also remember that
- "Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism."HerkusMonte (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please, according to the rule, provide now an English language reference on talk page, as dispute arises. Otherwise I must follow the rule.--Yopie (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- What kind of dispute do we have? Do you deny that Silesia shares a history between Germany and Poland? Do you deny that Breslau is the German name of Wroclaw? Or are you just disputing the usage of the Gdansk vote? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Lazarus in the film Outland
How is the 1981 science-fiction film Outland non-notable and Black Snake Moan notable? Neither one is Citizen Kane, but both have a substantial number of followers, I believe substantial enough to where my edit adding the reference to the 'Outland' character should stand. At least I'm assuming the "nn" in your notation "Rv nn trivia" means "non-notable." Methychroma (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
I reverted one of your edits here in the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment (Magyarphobia) and I deem such action hasty and borderline dubious. A reaction like this in the future will be constituted as an act of spamming (shamelessly blanking the page with no logical reason previously stated) and subject to Administrator's noticeboard candidate. Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Read talk page of this article and AfD's. You recreated previously deleted and redirected article. If you will continue in this manner, you will be blocked.--Yopie (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- The AfD decision was that the deleted article shouldn't be recreated with the same content. The new version which you are reverting is not the same content and a lot better sourced, so perhaps it would be better to take it to WP:DRV? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- My only desire is that if my article could bear the deleted article redirect name in order to standardize the anti-national/anti-ethnic prejudice series thus help improve the reader's experience in some way. But then again, we could just leave it Magyarphobia, couldn't we? I see it as one of many solutions we can implement to resolve this dispute once and for all. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- The AfD decision was that the deleted article shouldn't be recreated with the same content. The new version which you are reverting is not the same content and a lot better sourced, so perhaps it would be better to take it to WP:DRV? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)