User talk:Jeremydas

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vladimir Plahotniuc, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

WP:ACDS Alert
Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Stockdale Hardy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Harrison ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/John_Stockdale_Hardy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/John_Stockdale_Hardy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Stop linking countries and common terms. It is not generally done as per WP:OVERLINK. Please take the time to revisit the OVERLINKs you've made and revert them. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have informed myself and right now I'm doing a review. I apologize and thank you for the warning.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 Plahotniuc Public Relations Campaign
Please, Jeremydas, talk through your disputes instead of simply deleting and reverting changes constantly. The text changes to break up a long section is standard Wikipedia procedure. Just because you don't like the controversy section is no reason to delete it. What you demonstrate through those actions is a bias toward a public relations campaign. You do not delete subheadings that give a positive view of the individual, such as "philanthropy" but you delete ones that refer to accusations that are negative. Please be a responsible Wikipedia contributor and allow both positive and negative information as long as the information is factually accurate. I would accept you deleting another person's additions (whether positive or negative) if the information was inaccurate, for example if someone wrote that Plahotniuc was a convicted felon or was a child trafficker, but noting that someone has been accused of murder, if this is accurate, must be allowed, especially when these accusations have taken place in a court of law, where someone has been arrested in abstentia -- this is factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * AlberPenfold all the changes proposed can be found on the discussion page of Vladimir Plahotniuc, by the way, you have been invited to participate at the discussions also (on 01/02/2019). I do not have any wish to repeat or to do demagogy and thus, I repeatedly invite you to the Vladimir Plahotniuc’s discussion page to examine in details and to bring your opinion on every and each amendment according to the Wikipedia Policies (Discussion) And in the end, I would like to point out that my deleting (to which you made the reference) related to the subsections’ headings, since, all the information to which the reference was made in the subsections is upheld in the “Controversy” section – which I have not had any intention to delete but only to provide the balanced and neutral point of view (except the Subsection: Money Laundering Probe) (Discussion,

NPOV).


 * Thank you, Jeremydas, for this explanation. I have combined the money laundering Interpol accusation with the investigation launched by Russian authorities and kept that in the controversy section since nothing has been proven in a court of law. And thank you for agreeing not to delete subheadings since the "Controversy" section is rather long and should be broken up. I am ready and willing to engage in any discussion but do not understand what I should do or which questions I should be answering? I will be grateful if you keep this profile balanced and not try to make a public relations campaign for one person. I have added factual information that could be seen as both positive and negative about Plahotniuc; what's important for me is that there is factual accuracy. Your edits are uniformly a mechanism to present Plahotniuc in a positive manner. Wikipedia is for all users to provide objective facts, not a public relations platform. If you want PR, please buy advertisements or open a separate website.


 * You accused that I am doing the PR for Plahotniuc, by being positive? You know, I simply compared my presence and your interventions on the page, and I hardly tried to found some balanced updates from your side, beside denigrations and negativism I did not found anything ( from my point of view you tried to masking you interventions  and now I am quoting you “by presenting a balanced view on the individual”, but sorry it is not convincing) . I don’t’ have any wish to interfere on the page for any awareness campaign purposes. It is a challenge for me to keep this page according to the Wikipedia rules, once the rules a systematically infringed . I would like to point out that I do not have any interest to hide negative issues. All my updates have been motivated and referenced properly, and unfortunately, you did not consider this when you do similar changes. Yes, that is fine that beside interventions, you tried to update some texts, but let us not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and is not a newscast or an engine of sensations about people life, where can be added everything according to our tastes because it appears in the media.--Jeremydas (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your interventions are clearly a public relations attempt, Jeremydas. You do not remove anything positive, but remove anything negative. I follow the rules closely and I have added both positive and negative information. I have even cleaned up positive information to make the text read better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AlberPenfold Of course, you can pelt me forever, and otherwise, I can do the same. However, its sounds ridiculous and became senseless. You are insisting on some changes that you believe are according to the Wikipedia rules, but in parallel, you are avoiding to have an open dialog with me on the talk page on the subject that I have launched. You prefer to pelt me on my personal talk page about my personal interest linking with positive page image. In this case, I have no choice, I am coming back to the initial version by the time you will have a constructive dialog with me, and we will meet a Consensus. Since both stated that, we are aware of Wikipedia rules it is the time to show respect.


 * You are regularly breaking the rules and an example would be adding the subsection Accusation of Money Laundering. Most probably that would be an update, and the Wikipedia says that it might be and should be done, however, Wikipedia is not a news agency or a newspaper, and it should not come with all the details about the real time event happened.  It would be more correct to wait a day or so after the event and to check the information, and then, to add the accurate details to encyclopaedia, than to share the potentially false rumours.  --Jeremydas (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Jeremydas you can again try to discredit me by describing a dialogue as "ridiculous" just because you don't agree with the comments made, but you refuse to address or acknowledge the fact that you only delete negative comments and do not delete flattering comments for the Plahotniuc page. You also do not address the fact that there is a very long "Controversies" section that needs subtitles. If you don't like my subtitles, then add your own. I'd be happy to talk on your talk page instead, I'll move the conversation there now. AlberPenfold —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimitrie Bolintineanu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bolintin ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dimitrie_Bolintineanu check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dimitrie_Bolintineanu?client=notify 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) 09:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roberta Anastase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prahova ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Roberta_Anastase check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Roberta_Anastase?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Janaury 2020: Request to stop Vandalising Plahatniuc's page
Please, Jeremydas, stop vandalising Vladimir Plahatniuc's page: if you find something factually inaccurate, correct the factual inaccuracies do not delete broad sections -- this amounts to vandalism. Everything AlbertPenfold writes is researched using proper citations from legitimate newspapers and journals. Be respectful.
 * To consider my actions as act of vandalism is too much and wrong. All changes made (deletings/completings/information update) are well explained and motivated step by step (see discussion page). Moreover, I always followed the Wikipedia policy rules. You contrary avoid the reasoning concerning the wikipedia rules and are going on to insist on the same text each occasions, calling them as proper quotes from the newspapers and notorius journals, however they are not compliant all the time with the wiki policies (see discussion page).--Jeremydas (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C. A. Rosetti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles I ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/C._A._Rosetti check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/C._A._Rosetti?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
I didn't remove anything, please, check better what you reverted--5.171.215.43 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your very first modification was an unexplained deletion. See here Thx.--Jeremydas (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why
Why do many Wikipedians think ip users are vandalists? It really amazing. 39.122.78.101 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your edit is not a constructive.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the reasons? How to know? 39.122.78.101 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:RULES.--Jeremydas (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Image of Yo
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Yo has been reverted. The image has since been commented out. Thank you. 148.74.247.125 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.247.125 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Radu Grigorovici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)