User talk:Plandu/Archives/2020 1

February 2020
Hi plandu, I undid your reversion of my constructive edit. If you have an issue with it, I suggest you apply for a position writing for a Bolshevik encyclopedia or whatever opinionated ideology you believe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:204:3A25:30AC:9B06:2961:1876 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NATIONALIST. To the IP, please stop, this is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTAFORUM for your perceived grievances. @Plandu, i didn't mean to revert you. I have a few wiki windows open at the time and rushed my edit. My bad. Apologies. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, Resnjari. Thanks for clarifying! Plandu (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Warrimoo
I would much appreciate you to stop changing the Warrimoo page or you will be reported, this is a factual update based on reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.14.90 (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If your changes are factual updates from reliable sources, you need to cite those reliable sources. I especially look forward to seeing the reliable source that calls Warrimoo a medium-sized hole. Your uncited changes will continue to be reverted until you cite sources for the changes. Plandu (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Refrences
I have added references to my edit that you just undid, you are revoking factual information, I will remove the hole in the ground as that was not my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.14.90 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reference was the Britannica entry for the Soviet Union. It has nothing to do with the page you're editing. Plandu (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.117.19.154.211 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michigan's 4th House of Representatives district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isaac Robinson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Michigan%27s_4th_House_of_Representatives_district check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Michigan%27s_4th_House_of_Representatives_district?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
The information I posted, that you took down, is completely true and verifiable by many students at the school. I would request that you refrain from taking down completely accurate information in the future. If you believe that is vandalism, then why does Jakje Paul's page even exist? Thank you for your time Bobstewart12345678 (talk)
 * Hi there! Please familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:RS. Unfortunately, "many students at the school" does no qualify as a reliable source. The reason why Jake Paul's page exists, I would assume, is because there are reliable sources that report on him (for what reason they report on him, I cannot say). Plandu (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

March 5
About the LGBT Rights in Va page: I didn't expect the edit to stand. It was more to inform the person in charge of the article that if the page is going to make an unfounded accusation that some people do not have the same rights as everyone else, they had better prove it. Especially when it's the first words you read on the page. That taints the whole article. Pat34lee (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind the statement is given in the next two sentences. There may be a more neutral way of expressing this, and I would encourage you to change it to something you think is more appropriate. If you want to express opinions like your last edit, put them on the Talk page of the desired article so that more people can think of ways to improve the page. Plandu (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave it a go, using language akin to that on other LGBT rights in [state name] pages. Plandu (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Incompetence
You've incompetently reverted my edit twice now. The first was saying the information was sourced, it wasn't as I explained on the talk page and referred to in my edit summary. You reverted it the second time stating that I hadn't explained the edit. If you were paying attention you'd know I explained it on the talk page. Wake up and smell the coffee. 188.141.3.145 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your confusion about my reversion of your edits. While you did give an explanation that the section was not properly sourced, the section has sources, and those sources accurately describe the claims made in the article. Just because the article doesn't characterize them them with the word "imperialism" doesn't mean the information isn't sourced. It's also quite relevant in a section entitled "Modern Chinese expansionism". I hope this helps, and happy editing! Plandu (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to suggest its expansionism or imperialism without the terms or definitions of those terms being included in the citations.188.141.3.145 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "Chinese expansion" is literally in the title of one of the cites. Plandu (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so that's one Citation out of numerous. Regardless its still Original research to suggest this territorial expansion is imperialism.188.141.3.145 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)