User talk:Malljaja

Congratulations!

 * Let me second Adrian sentiments! It's been a pleasure working with you on this article. On a related note, are you up for another long-term collaboration on a Fungus-related article? I'm thinking about tackling either Basidiomycota or Ascomycota next, with a view towards FAC in maybe 5-6 months. The latter especially would be challenging, as it has a lot of highly technical terms that I've never heard of :) Sasata (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ,

 * I like to echo AL's comments—please be more careful and respectful in your edits especially to FAs, and please note that WP requires verifiable and complete sources. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know what is exactly your question. it may be related to this. Please read more Are you agree that slight misunderstanding may be a reason to reply ? The book carry slight references to CHICxulub but not to CHESapeake crater. CHESapeake crater is located thousands of miles north of FL. Please read more and if you care that WP requires verifiable and complete sources revert yourself to my edit or provide the page number >search having trouble to find (it is not in this book). Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2
Along similar lines, the same goes for your edits to the DNA sequencing page. I find it very hard to identify legitimate concerns you may have with the content or structure of the page because of all the poorly worded changes you propose as alternatives. If you have suggestions on how to improve the article but are limited by language skills, the best way seems to be to go to the talk page and explain what you would like to see changed. Focussing on one or two pages at a time is probably better than trying to work on very many at once, as you seem to be currently doing. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What can't you understand? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3
You typed: your edits contain numerous errors, so. Copy paste me one. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from removing content from your talk page; in addition, it is not good etiquette to leave comments like this one. These may be grounds for a report at ANI. Now for the errors, here are more than one: you inserted a superfluous hyphen in "sequencing methods". "The goal of DNA sequencing is to read the genetic information in the DNA code of life"—this sentence is inaccurate, since sequencing does not read the information in the genetic code; instead it reads the order of bases, which may be used to infer protein sequences by using the rules of the genetic code. "DNA concentration is adjusted so only one DNA particle replicate in one droplet." DNA is not a particle, and "replicate" should be "replicates". "metagenomic library may be usefful in sequencing very long or repetable DNA pieces on low troughput equipment." Sentence is truncated, nonsensical, and contains several errors (usefful, repetable). Malljaja (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1You say: *The goal of DNA sequencing is to read the genetic information in the DNA code of life* — this sentence is inaccurate, since sequencing does not read the information in the genetic code


 * I understand that your interpretation follow the way how Wikipedia treat genetic code - in narrow sense as "protein codons". Is not your fold that the broad sense of encoded genetic information = code of life was diverged here to narrow sense of protein codons. There is a lot of not acurate redirects slightly diverging meaning of words (however this one is not so bad). You can check encodeing code, coding and genetic. Removing the wikilink should be sufficient technical trick. (yse/no?) I do not see factual error in sentence. The goal of DNA sequencing is to read the genetic information in the DNA code of life. Do you see other error there? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * M: 2 DNA is not a particle, and "replicate" should be "replicates".
 * Believe Malljaja: DNA is a particle. Actually DNA is one of extremely large particle (largest bio-particles). In any piece of your body you have a lot of them. In your finger the largest is over 20 cm long. We (it mean me and others) count those particles one by one.


 * M 3, Next time please fix typos like: repetable > repetable, usefful >useful. I hope you can do it. O.K? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

4
My patience with you is at its end. In light of your repeated nonsensical edits, refusal to discuss matters at talk pages, removing my previous comments from your talk page, and pending your further behaviour, I may report you to ANI. Malljaja (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

M:"In light of your repeated nonsensical edits"
 * I agree to disagree

M:"removing my previous comments"
 * Don't you see - all your comments are addressed here.

M:"refusal to discuss matters at talk pages"
 * Did i skip to adders single one of your thesis? Which one? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems
I've similar concerns with this editor's changes to Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They've been creating havoc on many many pages. Multiregional hypothesis is a major one, they were editing as an IP user until about a week ago. A ban might be in order. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an indef block until they agree to discuss their ideas and sources on talk pages. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to leave a quick note to thank you for striking your words and for your apology. There are certainly no hard feelings, and I think your suggestions have ultimately improved the article greatly. I would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with you again in the future. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Xook1kai Choa6aur
. Just letting you know.

Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Admins studiously ignored the thread and it was archived. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ATP
I seem to be the victim of a rather one-sided reversion on the ATP article. Most of what I added was intended to correct the false impressions created by what comes after, which has been there with {cite} tags since October. But you reverted me, and left the rest, complete with "ref needed" stuff. Quite ironic, since I'm right, and the rest is wrong or at best incomplete. Do I really need a cite to point out that you can never get energy by simply breaking a chemical bond? See chemical bond. S B Harris 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Morrissey
Hello Malljaja...some time ago you were quite instrumental in mitigating the Morrissey national/ethnic identity debate--and it's remained British since that time...however, a few rogue editors have begun the "English" campaign with a reference to a random 1994 article. I'm wondering if you might assist again! as they will not work this via the talk page and I do not want to start another lengthy edit war!173.76.208.66 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't start any type of edit war; if you have reliable sources that help to cast doubt on the claim in the article that Morrissey self-identifies as English, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and provide links to your citations. Read the article that's currently being used as a ref while you're at it.   MPFC  1969  00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and your interest in Irish matters lends an important clue to your motives.  MPFC  1969  01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't "start" an edit war?--this item HAS been discussed ad nauseum, sorry that you are late to it and that it also conflicts with your POV--POV pushing, not the way to contribute btw. Corrrespondingly, and just for for giggles, how exactly does agreeing with his description as British support my alleged Irish "motive." Regardless of your "thoughts", please do watch the accusatory tone, buttercup. PS this is Malljaja's page not mine, please direct your note TO me if it has to be posted at her/his expense173.76.208.66 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Malljaja--as expected this issue has quickly devolved. I sense something may be going on with user account MPFC1969 above perhaps with User:Anna Frodesiak?? ) That MAY NOT be the case but I had returned a message in response to a claim that "I have an 'Irish' issue and that's why I want Morrissey labelled "British" NOT "English"?, that was quickly removed, as was what appeared to be the user's account itself, but now it's not only back but responding  ........and now User:Uncle Dick has joined the fray, attempting to bully me giving me a level 4 warning, when we have requested that this issue be taken to the talk page. Oy. I'm confident that THIS paragraph will be quickly deconstructed but I would appreciate AGAIN your assistance........ 173.76.208.66 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, he's in the US.....To have these people revert, NOT follow the established rules and THEN claim that it is I who is not doing so (whilst trying to bully a submission to keep their clear POV) seems entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. You seemed to have played an instrumental role in mediating that before,so of course I hope you'd reconsider--if not, it really shouldn't go unchecked, can you suggest any other editors who might help here?173.76.208.66 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dracula edit
Hi, i cannot find the concesus that you alluded to. I have checked the talkpage and can only see discussion of it being concluded that it should be GB&I without mention of what modern state that area now lays in.86.4.87.120 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
Your tightening up the article was well done. The sections beginning with "Personal life," which seems to have been there a long time, read too much like lists of trivia, IMO, — some personal, others acting related, and many unsourced. I wonder if you agree that those areas could use some overhaul. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Peak oil
Please repair this edit. I'm sorry my edit summaries were not descriptive enough, but you reintroduced a POV ref in the first line of the article, reintroduced POV non sequiturs into the text, reintroduced non-RS citations to a GA article, and reintroduced text which was removed after repeated requests for citation. I greatly appreciate your work to hold vandals at bay, but this was not vandalism. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikignome Award

 * I agree, good edits for concision on the Hitler article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

cite error
Hello again! Just wanted to let you know that your recent edit to A. Hitler has a cite error on #57. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good eyes there! I'd missed that omission, and it's now fixed. Malljaja (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitler
Ask yourself this question; if removing over 30 instances of a word leaves the meaning unchanged, was the word really necessary? --John (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not with you here. Using "however" as a conjunction and as a word to connect sentences is very much standard English usage, and "extortionary" is a common adjective modifying "letter". If you're unhappy about the (over)use of words in certain instances, I'd suggest to remove them individually, preferably with a brief explanation (such as inappropriate use instead of "and" or "moreover"). I looked at many of the instances where you have removed "however", and its meaning was often "nevertheless" in these instances. So I'd urge you to look at the context of the word, not the word itself. Otherwise it seems you're on a vendetta against certain words, rather than genuinely interested in improving the language. Finally, if we were to omit all superfluous words (such as "finally" here), entries will start to read like telegrams. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, so you view words as space fillers while I view them as units of meaning. I will take this to article talk now I think. See Help:Reverting for why what you just did (twice) is considered rather rude and unhelpful. Cheers. --John (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise if you perceived my reversions as unhelpful—please bear with my point of view, which is, if someone makes a fairly large number of edits that suggest that he has not taken the time to peruse the sections he modified (because the majority of changes he made are not because of inaccurate word usage, but evidently because of a certain style preference), he displays a certain rudeness and unhelpfulness himself and may even be pushing a certain POV. Back to the issue at hand. "However" is not a "filler", it is used as a conjunctive adverb that conveys indeed meaning as in this construction: "Hitler and Ludendorff sought support of Staatskommissar (state commissioner) Gustav von Kahr, Bavaria's de facto ruler. However, Kahr along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser (Seißer) and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler", which in your suggested version would become "Hitler and Ludendorff sought support of Staatskommissar (state commissioner) Gustav von Kahr, Bavaria's de facto ruler. Kahr along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser (Seißer) and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler." Now, in your preferred version, the second sentence becomes disconnected from the preceding sentence adding needless ambiguity and possible confusion (also, note that that "however" is not used here as "moreover"; its meaning in this example is "on the other hand" or "by contrast", thus making the connection with the first sentence). My comment about "superfluous words" was tongue in cheek and not meant to suggest that entries should be populated by words as space fillers. Judging from your comments, and looking over your edits again, I feel even more strongly that you need to look at the context in which the words are used, not the word itself. The majority of "howevers", I've checked were used in place of "on the other hand", "yet", etc, and not as "moreover" or "and", the usage that you find objectionable, and which I also would flag as incorrect. Malljaja (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered response, and for highlighting a specific example. Where do you see an ambiguity in "Hitler and Ludendorff sought support of Staatskommissar (state commissioner) Gustav von Kahr, Bavaria's de facto ruler. Kahr along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser (Seißer) and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler."? --John (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity may arise by not clearly indicating that the two intentions are opposing each other. Hitler and Ludendorff wanted support from Kahr, yet Kahr actually wanted to pursue his own political ambitions without Hitler. Another more verbose way of putting this is "Kahr along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser (Seißer) and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow had their own plans and wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler". This would work too, but it would be, uhm, more verbose. "However" could also be replaced with "yet", "in contrast", etc. My, by its very nature subjective, reading experience suggests that a connective word or phrase is needed between these two sentences for clarity and flow. Malljaja (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Jah Wobble
I stand corrected ;). That'll teach me to check references before editing and that there are actually people called Johnny Rotter... Happy new year —– Quibus (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Labeling edits with TW
Hi Malljaja. This edit does not fit the definition of vandalism. It could also help if you discussed these matters with the other editor on the talkpage instead of continuously reverting them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Austria 20th century
I have made a topic [|here] and you just keep reverting back without even talking about it, the problem is it says "native Austrian Hitler" then again he is mentioning him as a native Austrian, why? Adolf Eichmann was not Austrian, he was German by nationality - why do you have him in the native Austrians bit?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the Berlin page
Hi - since you edited the Berlin page within the last couple months, I'm writing to ask if you'd like to weigh in on a current content dispute that has resulted in a request for comment. The issue, simply, is whether the Berlin article should include an image of the "Buddy Bears" or not. Thanks for your time, Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

 * Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
 * Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Your input would be valued --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead image on Adolf Hitler page
I've just revisited the above page and see that you reverted an edit that replaced the existing photograph of Hitler with another. I support your reversion of that change because the existing photograph is the official portrait of Hitler, and so should stay in place. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I discussed the material, provided sources, your deletion was unjustified
I discussed and provided references from a reliable source to back up what I added. The issue of Hitler's alleged anti-Semitism in Vienna is controversial and I presented evidence that disputes that he was anti-Semitic then. It is important, there was no reason to delete it.--R-41 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have refused to address the concerns I addressed here. I discussed the issue at length in the article. Hitler's alleged anti-Semitism in Vienna is disputed. I have presented evidence that disputes claims that he was anti-Semitic then. The length is acceptable because it describes his relationships with Jews that challenges the claims that he was anti-Semitic. You have presented no real reason for deleting in other than I just don't like it. Please respond to this immediately, discuss exactly why my edits are too long, or I am going to report this to administrators for arbitration of this dispute.--R-41 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've responded here. Feel free to report this to arbitration. Malljaja (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the editors - Kierzek in the discussion said that both sides should be shown, which I have done. If you want to find material to back up the claims you can add that. But the dispute is real by serious historians. Wikipedia is not a democracy - it depends on reliable sources, not merely quantity in favour of one opinion or another. Hamann has refuted many of the myths about Hitler's past and her work has been praised. I strongly believe that this is an issue of I just don't like it or based on outdated sources - Hamann's work has challenged Liebenfels' claims - noting that he also made claims about influencing Vladimir Lenin, and she has described Hitler's Jewish friends in Vienna by name and described their relationships. The article is using outdated material - such as Shirer's book made in 1960 that has substantial portions that have been challenged and refuted since the 1960s.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I added the material after a period of time in which no response had been made to the last comment I made at Talk:Adolf Hitler. I added it in accordance to the suggestion by User:Kierzek who agreed that both the views for and against claims that Hitler was anti-Semitic in his youth in Vienna should be presented. I included the statements that say that he was anti-Semitic but also included refutations from Hamann of a number of those claims. Kierzek proposed an acceptable solution in accordance with consensus and I applied it. But I request that claims that intend to prove that Hitler being anti-Semitic should be up-to-date with modern research and that they be reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a democracy - pursuit of consensus is not merely tallying up the number of people who support one side of an argument versus another side, it is about investigating the argument - finding reliable sources to back up the claims of the sides, and removing unreliable sources. I have brought up this issue at the administrator's noticeboard to ask how to proceed. This is a serious issue in history of when Hitler's antisemitism arose and what aroused it, I've addressed the concerns of scholars that there is no verifiable evidence that Hitler was antisemitic in Vienna in the 1900s and 1910s. Since a number of users are refusing for these sources to even be used in the article, this needs mediation or arbitration. I have addressed the issue at the administrator's noticeboard and am asking them for advice on how to proceed.--R-41 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue here. So far two users agree with me that up-to-date sources are needed and one of them says that if verified evidence of Hitler's known friendship with Jews in Vienna is going to be challenged - it requires reliable sources to challenge it - and not material from Mein Kampf claiming he was anti-Semitic then, nor I would add sources that use Mein Kampf to describe Hitler's years in Vienna.--R-41 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41's editing of the Nazism page
Hello. I noticed your comment posted on the above's talk page which expressed disquiet with his manner of editing. I wholly agree after seeing what he has done to a section that was recently added to the page on Nazism (Church and State), replacing older material which a consensus of contributors judged sub-standard. I was the author of the section which came about after a lengthy discussion on the talkpage which left me holding the short straw. The others were of course free to improve the new section, but up until now have seemed happy to let it stand. It clearly needs to evolve into something better, but along has come R-41 and carried out a hatchet job for reasons that appear to me dishonest. My response to his editing is now on the Nazism talkpage. From a previous experience of trying to reason with this person (as have others), I feel he constitutes a menace to those trying to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. As you are a more knowledgeable and experienced user of Wikipedia than myself, I would ask you, if you feel inclined, to look into this and decide whether there is a case for warning R-41 not to delete contributions by justifying them on the basis of false claims. Thanks. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your advice. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As always Malljaja, your ce work (E.g.: Adolf Hitler) is excellent. The article Nazism (and Nazi Party, for that matter) need ce work. So do have a look when you get a chance. I made an addition to the Nazism article and on the talk page have added my thoughts. My main point being, we need to focus most on the interplay in relation to Nazism; otherwise we will be putting in material more suited for the articles Religion in Nazi Germany or even Nazi Germany. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi: the discussion continues on the Nazism talk page as to the above. If you have the time, I would welcome your thoughts. You would think we were reinventing the wheel. There is an article I think could be used for ce with cites, Religious aspects of Nazism (although that page could use some work too). There are so many offshoot pages on Nazism. Too many really, but for this matter all we need to do is mention these aspects on the Nazism page and the readers can be directed to the other related articles for greater detail. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I don't understand why you feel that "Aryan supremacy" does not belong here. It's just one of a list of things Hitler used and I personally see no reason to infer its relative importance from its presence. Britmax (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler
Hi, this article is up for GA review and if you have time, I think it would be helpful to have another pair of eyes for ce work there. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help thus far; we are really close to being done and the article is in the best shape it has ever been. Kierzek (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming - FAC
Hi Malljaja, sorry to bother you on what must be quite a repetitive subject. Thanks for the support on the info box discussion on Peter Sellers and I appreciate the difficult decision you made, swinging over to the deletionists side even though you like infoboxes. Unfortunatly, the same thing is happening here and I would really value your comments. This is slightly more serious as it is currently an FAC. Sorry to have to get you to repeat yourself on the same subject, but a consensus is desperately needed so we can nip this in the bud now. Happy editing! -- CassiantoTalk 07:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone
I know you mean good faith, but I urge you to be a little more careful with what you say on here. Your "frankly quite lazy" comment has left a nasty taste in my mouth. I know what you mean and I was thinking the same thing last night that perhaps the quoting has become overcooked but what you said is something of a motivation killer.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Funny but Arsten didn't give me an award for my work on it! Yes, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers
Thanks for your recent edits on the Sellers article. If you could hold fire for a little while, a further edit is taking place in my sandbox as part of the edit process. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're working on condensing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note on my page and for your patience. The further edit has now taken place and the resultant article has now been moved back onto the main page. The result is one that all the editors are now broadly happy with in terms of length and coverage. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For somebody who has only contributed one article to wikipedia you have quite a mouth on you don't you in attacking the edits of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of wikipedians on here who have very busy careers, family and other commitments and contribute more to the project in one week than you've ever done in years. I would never normally criticize others, its entirely up to them what they give to the project, but when I see them attacking the work of others when they are not in the place to do so I'll make a point of it. From what I've seen you are a quality copy editor and could be a very good contributor, but your cynical attitude is most appalling and it is the behaviour of people like you and wikiwatcher which have driven many of our best editors away with the constant sniping and bad faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers
Hi Malljaja, I saw your comment on the Sellers page and I have a favour to ask. Could you please take another look at the Wilder comment and see if you are happy that it now sits in a more appropriate context. If not, and you feel that it can't be fixed in something appropriate, then please feel free to revert to the previous version. Many thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012
Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks even Santa needs to wear safety belts these days... Malljaja (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

fMRS peer review
Hi Malljaja, I have opened a WP:Peer review for fMRS article. It is perhaps not exactly your subject of interest, but could you possibly look at the article, rate it and suggest the necessary changes? Thanks! --Dcdace (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have added Kierzek. Thanks for catching the fact that a participant was missing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Malljaja; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw this; a belated CONGRATS! Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge
--Kippelboy (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas....
I hope you have a good, relaxing holiday...Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten 2014
I hope you are doing well. I also hope you will rejoin the fray in 2015 with your fine ce and edit work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer review for DNA Sequencing article
Hi, As one of the main contributors to the DNA sequencing article, I thought you might like to know I've requested a peer review, in an attempt to eventually get the article up to GA (it's currently rated C-class). The review page is here; any comments you have would be appreciated (obviously any help with editing would be fantastic too!) Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)