User talk:Ornilnas

I noticed you removed a large amount of discussion in the talk section of Elder Scrolls:Oblivion, including many comments that were not yours. Any particular reason why? -Fuzzy 00:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry, my intention was only to remove an unneeded comment by myself, however I must have ended up reverting to an older version... Ornilnas
 * No problem. Wikipedia is a learning experience. -Fuzzy 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo jpopsuki.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo jpopsuki.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Procoptodon page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718992806 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F718992806%7CProcoptodon%5D%5D Ask for help])

Communistic manifest listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Communistic manifest. Since you had some involvement with the Communistic manifest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Gandalv" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gandalv. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

V. Vescovo Page Edit?
On 23 March 2021, you edited the page of Victor Vescovo stating in the edit comment: "It should be made clear that he was not the first to visit each of them. What is the basis for this edit? It is well documented that no person in history had ever been to the bottom of the Atlantic, Southern, Indian, or Arctic oceans. Therefore, why the edit? Guinness World records, CNN, BBC, and other major news outlets checked the story and verified it as true. Can you please undo the change? Vlvescovo (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The original sentence implied that Vescovo was the first to visit the deepest point of each of the five oceans, which is not true. Ornilnas (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true, however. See: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/victor-vescovo-historic-dive/index.html among other stories published and researched at the time. There are no citations to support the assertion that it is not true? Ornilnas could be making the point that the first descent to one of the oceans, the Pacific, was made twice before in 1960 (Walsh and Piccard) and 2012 (James Cameron) but no one had ever been to the deepest point in all five oceans. Vlvescovo (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The original sentence implied that you were the first to reach each point, separately. Ornilnas (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A compromise? Perhaps add at the end: ", the first to reach all five" which is accurate and supported by multiple references. The revised sentence makes no indication that it has been done only once, and omits the distinction that no one had been to the bottom of four of the five before. I would think this is relevant and worthy of mention? Vlvescovo (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I find that important enough to mention in the introduction, which is why I didn't rewrite it to reflect that. It would be more relevant to mention, for instance, that you were the first to visit four of those points. But other editors might disagree, so if you want to suggest such an improvement to the article, it would be better to take it to the article's Talk page. Ornilnas (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW
Your perspective and comment is legitimate and you are not the only editor who has expressed concerns about that line for those very same reasons. I think you can find the discussions I'm referring to in archives 4 and 5. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but now I'm even more confused. The earlier "largest conventional warfare operation" and "largest conventional military attack" seem much better supported than the current wording, so those discussions clearly went sideways. I'll have to think about this some more. Ornilnas (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2022 (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) 00:21, 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Israel-Hamas war
Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform on a —whether involving the same or different material—within a. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:



I see you have already been reverted and so can't self-revert, but please be careful in the future to abide by the topic area restrictions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe I only reverted once. The first edit was simply me adding my own text to the sentence. Both my edit and my single revert were reverted, so I made a new section on the Talk page instead. I usually avoid reverting several times, but I didn't know about this particular rule for this particular page, so thanks for letting me know :) Ornilnas (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right; I apologize. I'm not sure why I mistook that for a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)