User talk:R9tgokunks/Archive18-19

Justice League
I just wanted you to know that the information you wanted to insert was removed from the lead. First, the lead summarizes and shouldn't be a house for unique information not present elsewhere in the article. Second, the article wasn't identifying it as a "bomb" in the sense that you were using it when you linked to that page. It was using the term as a symbolic reference for the film not performing better, not that it didn't make money. They kind of go out of their way to point out that if it was any other franchise, it would be considered a success, but because it's Justice League it's considered a "bomb" simply because it didn't make a billion dollars. They weren't actually comparing direct costs to revenue ratios and we shouldn't be presenting the information as if they were.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Bignole, In modern times, the phrase 'box office bomb' is used liberally for any film that does not make what is expected, see "The Mummy", "Blade Runner 2049," "King Arthur", and "Justice League." -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The very page you link to says that it's more than just simply not making back what it costs. Again, the issue not about whether it lost money, the issue is two-fold: The lead is not the place to introduce unique information that isn't present in the rest of the article, and Forbes was talking about how Justice League compares to other franchises and because of its hype is considered a bomb, not because of actual money lost. That's my point, they go out of their way to point out how it's made as much as many other films that cost similar, but it is not living up to reputation. You cannot insert that into the lead for sensationalism when there isn't context to explain what Forbes is saying.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, User:Bignole. The fact is that Justice League is a box office bomb, and this is well reported as a simple Google search indicates. In 2017, the term has been used liberally for films that grossed more than their budgets but did not perform as expected. See Blade Runner 2049, King Arthur, The Mummy (2017 film), and Justice League. Here are many sources calling it a box office bomb, and the term 'box office flop', which links to the same wiki article:

1.The Atlantic calls it a 'flop.'

2.Uproxx calls it a 'bomb.'

3.Screenrant calls it a 'box office bomb disaster.'

4. Forbes does, as sourced before, and no it's not a "joke" as you claim: "Justice League is somewhat unique unto itself in terms of being able to make so much and still be considered a bomb."

5. Vulture calls it a 'flop.'

6. Business Insider calls it a 'flop.'

7. Observer calls it a 'flop.'

8. toofab calls it a 'flop.

9. Express calls it a 'flop.'

etc.

I notice you frequent your time on articles pertaining to DC products. Do you happen to work for DC or Warner Brothers? Perhaps you should take a break from editing DC related articles as you are letting personal interests get in the way of the mission of Wikipedia. It's quite a conflict of interest and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. See: WP:COI. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, don't presume to know me based on what I edit. It's unprofessional and uncouth to accuse me of having a COI because you think I work for something I don't simply based on my edits. I have also edited tons of Horror related articles, do you assume I work for those companies as well? Please don't try to distract the discussion with baseless accusations.


 * Second, you clearly keep missing my point. I never said the film was or was not a bomb. What I said was that (and I'll try to make this clearer for you):
 * 1) The lead is for summarizing an article NOT for inserting unique information not present elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD
 * 2) The way Forbes is talking, you're presenting the information without context and Forbes is clearly talking about the film in relation to its performance and other franchises, not simply the Xs and Os of budgets. Yes, it has failed to make its money back. Not disputing that, nor disputing the actual label of "bomb". I'm telling you that you are misattributing what Forbes is saying by trying to make it seem as though they are specifically talking about cost and revenue. It's much more than that and you can see that from reading the whole and not title grabbing.


 * In conclusion, what you should surmise from this is that you need to develop the box office section more to reflect what you're trying to add instead of simply taking the shortcut approach and throwing it in the lead (where it doesn't belong, because the lead is for summarizing).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, per this discussion, I will add that information via the sources i have amalgamated into the box office section, and then after I will reinsert it into the lede, as it is very notable, and currently isn't mentioned at all on the article, which i find sinister. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis
Your edit does not match your edit summary? --Neil N  talk to me 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Shoot, I'm sorry User:NeilN ! I didn't know you already removed it. I assumed something went wrong with my editing. I was in the process of removing it when that happened. No malicious intent! I've also messaged that user on their talk page letting them know it goes against WP:BLP and WP:RS.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was actually EEng who removed it. Do you want to undo your edit? --Neil N  talk to me 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, whoops. I see that now. I don't think I can at this point because i've made a few more edits attempting to add past information, with good sources, such as Newsweek. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation
The reason why I think this is better suited as a category is because it only has one column, and your reason might not apply because the template could be added to other articles. ToThAc (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milo Yiannopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Milo_Yiannopoulos check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Milo_Yiannopoulos?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) 09:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message
In regards to the sources please find the links below! I'm not to sure how to edit all this but feel its important.

Thanks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bright-screenwriter-max-landis-accused-of-sexual-assault

https://screenrant.com/max-landis-sexual-assault-harassment-allegations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.53.220 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nemetsky National District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halbstadt ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nemetsky_National_District check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nemetsky_National_District?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Germanic languages
Hello. There is a dialect continuum from the Low Franconian to the Central Franconian and High Franconian languages via Limburgish. Limburgish was already affected by the High German consonant shift and is already transitional between Low Franconian and Ripuarian. Also, Low German has more Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germanic) features than Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alternative for Germany ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alternative_for_Germany check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alternative_for_Germany?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Anti-Islam
 * Young Alternative for Germany ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Young_Alternative_for_Germany check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Young_Alternative_for_Germany?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative for Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alternative_for_Germany check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alternative_for_Germany?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Stickee (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited On Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decker ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/On_Cinema check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/On_Cinema?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

English people article
But therefore wouldn't my addition hold true since ethnicity falls under association ("otherwise associated with England")? I only add this because the article implies that English people are only considered so if they are born in England; "native to", (native referring to ones place of birth and nothing else). What would you define as an English person and the difference between ethnic and nationality in this case? Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to hear your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.70.183 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

category changes
Please stop edit warring with me. I am updating a category that you are interfering with. Charles Manson, Al Capone and many others are not in the category because they are not currently prisoners or detainees of the US government. If you desire to help with Wikipedia, perhaps you can add th em...if you can convince others that they should be included. Please stop your vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. You are the one who is commiting vandalism. see WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is the REMOVAL of content. R9tgokunks   ✡  03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my posting to your talk page? I explained earlier I am updating a category. You have decided not to discuss and have only threatened me with being a vandal and that I will blocked. Sir or Madam please stop interfering in my editing with such blatant disregard. I explained earlier the category prisoners and detainees of the us government is for current prisoners and detainees only. I have offered as proof the fact that Charles Manson and Al Capone are both excluded for obvious reasons though both served considerable time in US prison. Please communicate and do not remove my edits, nor my posting to your talk page. Thank you!2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact remains I am not a vandal and will not debate the issue with me. You removed my posting to your talk page and have continued to revert all my edits for the category in question. I do believe to remove talk page discussions on any talk page is a violation of Wikipedia policy and is in fact vandalism itself.
 * 1. Vandalism is the removal of content, which you are doing. READ WP:VANDALISM. (I already stated that above.)
 * 2. Wikipedia policy specifically states that users can do whatever they want to their talk pages. I can delete whatever I want. Also, you're complaining about me removing your post after I had re-added it, anyway. R9tgokunks   ✡  03:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Content changes as the time changes. Please explain why the two individuals I cited are not included in the category? It is because they no longer fit the category. Perhaps, you should wait for a real answer rather than resorting to edit warring and vandalism. Thank youWell please reread the General talk page. Please use some sense man!

This IP is going through almost every article and removing the same category. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @R9tgokunks: As well they might; as they have explained on your Talk page, the category should not remain on the page of everyone who at one time was a federal prisoner indefinitely. Discuss with them, please. General Ization Talk 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you will assist me with reverting all the undo's that need to be done. Or perhaps you wish to consult with another higher up? I can wait. Though I believe the consensus right now is two to your one2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Mark Rigg
I've added some relevant tags, sadly I don't have time right now to review this in more detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danish colonial empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ada and Cong ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Danish_colonial_empire check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Danish_colonial_empire?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

--Correctman (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Czechs and Germans

Hi! Czechs are not related to Germans. The only people in the Czech Republic who are related to Germans are Sudeten Germans, who are ethnic germans living in the Czech Republic. Czechs are a Slavic people. There are german minorities in France, Poland, Italy. That doesn't make the people living in these countries related to germans. It's only the ethnic germans living in those countries that are related. If u need more explanation. Dont hesitate to write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited County of Saarwerden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bockenheim ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/County_of_Saarwerden check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/County_of_Saarwerden?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. In the Low Saxon-speaking regions of the Netherlands, Low German is referred to as Low Saxon only, and in the West Low German-speaking regions of Germany, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Also in English, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Only in the East Low German-speaking regions, Low German is referred to as Low German only. You might want to have a look at the version as of 14:58, 11 November 2017 before someone classified Dutch and Afrikaans as "Netherlandic". Also, it is strange that there is, since 18:51, 7 December 2017, a category "Standard variants" for the Low Franconian languages, when there are other standardized Germanic languages as well. And the West Low German dialects have more in common with the Anglo-Frisian languages than the East Low German dialects. Also, Dutch and Afrikaans are West Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
 * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert
Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Images in signature
It should be noted that it is against Wikipedia policy to use images in your signature. Please alter your signature to remove the images as per WP:SIGIMAGE. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just realized it's actually a Unicode character. Ignore me. Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Czech Republic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Czech_Republic check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Czech_Republic?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Collins
 * Name of the Czech Republic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Name_of_the_Czech_Republic check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Name_of_the_Czech_Republic?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Collins

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was it reverted?
I don't understand, why was this reverted? I was not vandalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HowToBasic&oldid=835976569
 * You defaced the article by reverting to an older version. It re-added a large amount of WP:OR, removed content, and removed a bunch of sources, which were explicitly added to improve the notability of the article. In both edits you used a misleading edit summary (Added birth name) and even when doing that you added obvious uncited O.R. (Michael Stevens is not HTB). You did it twice and you would have known what you were doing, so you can drop the act. R9tgokunks   ✡  01:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that the fact was still unknown. But thanks for letting me know about why my edit was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Heads up at French people
This edit may not qualify for a 3RR exemption, because you reintroduced bad data. I am inclined to roll back all the way to the version from 25 April, once the article stabilizes a little bit; it looks like the IP edit on 2 May is where the bad data (like 6M French in Argentina) got introduced. —C.Fred (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Do what you will. I want to get it back to where it was. R9tgokunks   ✡  06:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to have rolledback to a revision by yourself. Was there bad data in that revision? R9tgokunks   ✡  06:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This edit by Odoures was actually a good edit. The population in Argentina is the easy data to track to the source. —C.Fred (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Czechs
Austrians and Germans were wrongly and boldly added by an anonymous editor. The more recent attempts to remove this part have been proper. Please see a discussion dating back over 12 months still on display. Thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alsatian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Meghan%2C_Duchess_of_Sussex check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Meghan%2C_Duchess_of_Sussex?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

the link to Dhimmitude dot com is to an Islamophobic source and irrelevant to the argument about the weakness of the Cairo Declaration
It appears that you undid my edit which pointed out the problematical link. I am quite sure of the accuracy of my comment. Can you please explain more fully how my edit was not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.14.141 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you haven't been to Wikipedia before. Your edit was bad, in general. You didn't even delete the whole source and it left the article looking bad due to the spare wiki-syntax. Also, you didn't look at the source anyway. It states that it's a copy of an article David Littman (historian) published in Midstream. Plus, I'm not seeing how the site that hosts the article is Islamophobic. Also, you need to learn how to sign your comments R9tgokunks   ⯃  06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is removing misleading information vandalism?
Care to explain? With specific reference to articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Vandalism, also read WP:CITE and WP:RS. Removing information that is well cited is vandalism. R9tgokunks   ⯃  19:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I explained in both instances why they are not well sourced. In the second case it seems you didn't bother to check and just issued a warning because you don't like me or whatever. The behavior of moderators on this site is quite incredible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have fun with that block for personal attacks and disruptive editing, like I warned you about. R9tgokunks   ⯃  21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Czechia
Would you please do kind an explain why is an official Facebook site of the Czech government something which you are deleting instantly from the article Adoption of Czechia? Thank you and regards from Basel, Swiss Confederation ;-) Helveticus96 (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) ...I join this question. Who has the right to delete something, which is obviously undeniable, important for the issue and official without discussion ? It happened many times in this context. Heptapolein (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'd also like to know why this isn't allowed. The provided link seems like a reasonable way how show that the Czech Government somehow works in order to promote the name. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs use their Facebook account to communicate with the public. Is it not reliable enough? Oasis98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, You all need to read up on Wikipedia policy per the links I left on the talk page. Facebook links are not usable for sourcing on Wikipedia, anyways.  R9tgokunks   ⯃  05:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , per BOTTOMPOST, you should always place new talk page comments at the bottom of others' user talk pages. Please start doing this. R9tgokunks   ⯃  05:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:MyAnimeList has a new comment
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:1em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;width: 100%;"> I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:MyAnimeList. Thanks! <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roseanne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and Vanity Fair ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Roseanne check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Roseanne?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to
read this.Best, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 05:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm familar with that. I stepped away after realising that. A fellow administrator brought it to my attention. R9tgokunks   ⯃  06:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks:) It might be also prudential to note that a vandal-IP-hopper had created a misleading edit-notice for your t/p, which I've tagged for G3.Best, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Only If (2014 Video Game)
Hey R9tgokunks,

I just received a proposed deletion of the article mentioned above, I've read that the reason is because of another banned account is sock puppeting. Is the propsal out of general suspicion?

I'm the video game's creator and acknowledged that when creating the article and tried to ensured no bias while editing by basing how the article is written to other game articles.

For verification reasons, my email is tarek@creability.co if you wish to further confirm that I am the game's developer who wrote the article.

Regards, Tarek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromfame (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Well, you're weren't under suspicion before...this has to do with a different user entirely who had a history of bad editing. (User:Mayamaya7) They were blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET.


 * Also, Wikipedia has rules against editing articles pertaining to subjects you are close to... (see WP:Conflict of interest, WP:NOTPROMO) normally you're supposed to report a COI, sometimes continued editing with a COI can get you blocked from editing. Unfortunately, since you're the creator of the project and you created it's article, I think it bodes poorly for the article's status... especially because per WP:NOTABILITY we need significant coverage and sources. We don't have that in the sources. 1 source is the website for the company (see also WP:PRIMARY SOURCES), and another is Giant Bomb, which is a notoriously unreliable source. R9tgokunks   ⯃  04:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi I understand thanks for your explanation, there were references on the article to meta critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/only-if) and the steam's page (https://store.steampowered.com/app/298260/Only_If/) which sold 1.2 million units and had  youtubers such as pewdiepie monetize it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGHn8Ksfxg).

Does having a COI still result in an article's deletion regardless of such references and an attempt at writing fairly?

I was motivated by this disclosure during the creation process: "Disclosing your relationship with the subject is important in both giving context and transparency with your edits. Additionally, it helps others assist you in making your content more suitable for Wikipedia." fromfame 6:46, 27 June 2018 (GMT)

Realm Royale PROD
I declined your PROD of Realm Royale. I don't see any problem with the article itself; there's enough sourcing and discussion to establish a degree of notability. It wouldn't qualify for CSD G5, given that the article has had substantial edits by others. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page please.
Don't post anything to my page that is not either required by wikipedia or a valid template. I will treat any further unwarranted templating, or non-required communication as vandalism. Meters (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , If you are defiant against use of warning templates then that's a separate issue altogether. You're an editor here and you need to get used to them. Both were valid. You made two reverts at Uma Musume Pretty Derby and the edit-warring template can be applied regardless of the number of reverts as I have stated many times and you seem to refuse to accept.


 * Also, I'll remind you again that you warned me twice for the same thing, which was inappropriate in any instance. My warning for edit-warring was valid as noted before. Here is your first warning and the second warning, and here is the final revision with both included before I removed them. That is highly inappropriate. My second template warning you against misuse of warning templates was also valid. Not sure if you have amnesia or what, but you did inappropriately add two of them. R9tgokunks  ⯃  05:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Czechia / Czech Republic
You need to calm down on your crusade to rid the world of 'Czechia'. WP:COMMONNAME refers primarily to article titles, and the talk page discussions you linked to are also concerned with the re-naming of the national article. The fact that Czech Republic is still the more widely used term does not provide justification for what you are clearly doing: searching for any mention of the term Czechia in Wikipedia with the intention of removing it from the site altogether, even though it is an acknowledged official term for the country; I see it as the equivalent to USA v United States or UK v United Kingdom. Crowsus (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it applies to edits like yours. The name is not to be changed until consensus is reached per discussions at Talk:Czech Republic. We've had numerous discussions on this, most of which are in the archives. R9tgokunks   ⯃  05:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Czechia and Czech Republic
Thank you for your polite request. However, WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not about the text of articles. If reliable sources use a variety of names, so should we, albeit in the same proportion. Otherwise we are skewing Wikipedia so that it does not reflect the real world. Meanwhile Czechia has become the official short name of the country, recognised by Britain, the USA and the UN. Even more reason to graciously allow both names to be used here. Bermicourt (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intrusion: Wp:Commonname gives the (unifying) power to use it more than sources suggest, in page titles or in the text of articles. Wikipedia does not try to keep the ratio of synonyms detected from sources and it is not considered as skewing. Czechia has its undeniable place in several articles and those were not touched, R9 just deleted some completely random (unsystematic) occurrences of Czechia, I think. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , is correct, and this is all parsed out more at these two discussions:
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * - R9tgokunks  ⯃  23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those links relate to one discussion about the main article title, the moratorium for which has expired. But I am not attempting to change the main article - I'm quite happy it's titled "Czech Republic" - I'm using Czechia just as editor normally use alternative or short names for countries e.g. Britain and UK for the United Kingdom. As for WP:COMMONNAME giving "unifying power" to use it everywhere - just made that up - it says nothing of the sort and editors freely use alternative names in the text of other articles. The truth is you are simply on a campaign to eliminate Czechia from Wikipedia because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and are prepared to risk edit warring to do so, as evinced by the number of editors raising this on your talk page whom you have clearly irritated. Bermicourt (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intrusion #2 but I was pinged ;) - Does wikipedia really use synonyms for other countries or does it (or is wikipedia a "she"?) use one agreed common name which corresponds to main article name/title? Well yes, maybe for US and UK, but those are known to UK/US readers but you don't want to confuse them with more than one name for other countries of the world ;P What is the point to use Czechia on completely random places here and there? It breaks unified treatment and is kind of considered as vandalism. Again - Czechia is not banned and has its undeniable place in several articles. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand - Was it completely necessary to delete Template:User in Czechia and make it a redirection? If someone wants to use Czechia in his/her user page, let him/her. Russians have a choice - Template:User in the Russian Federation, Template:User in Russia - both lead to Russia. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Czechia/Czech Republic
Czechia is grammatically correct and approved by the Czech Language Institute. Short country name "Česko"/"Czechia" to be entered in UN databases. The short (geographic) name of a country cannot be substituted by its formal (political) name, which is transient and ignores the historic continuity of a given state territory because it is limited only to the existing state form. While the Czech Republic has only existed since 1993, the Czech state has existed in various forms and under different political names for more than one thousand years. As such, the political name can never fully replace a permanent geographic name that does not change in response to changing state forms in a particular territory. - Exactwo (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That wording sounds familiar. Is that you, Jan Blanicky?--Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , to top it off that user only has one edit, this addition to my talk page. R9tgokunks   ⯃  23:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly Blanicky. Somebody say "Czechlands" and see if he says "terminus technicus". --Khajidha (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to let you guys know, these sockpupp...ehem, I mean "Users" are all highly likely part of an organization called the "Czechia Initiative". This is an organization that goes all over the internet (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Articles, etc) and attempts to persuade anyone of the use of "Czechia" with sketchy information on various websites in which they own. I noticed their "users" do indeed use very similar language or almost suspiciously identical. Nonetheless, here's some of these websites below:
 * http://czechia-initiative.com/
 * http://www.go-czechia.com/
 * https://www.czechia-heart-of-europe.com/


 * The organization also runs various Social Media accounts, the facebook one in particular is calling you out and claiming that you are "censoring" them. A man named "Václav Šulista" seems to be the ringleader who is very gung-ho about the use of Czechia. I've also seen "Jan Balnicky" a lot as well and not just on Wikipedia. Again, they use almost identical language.
 * https://www.facebook.com/CzechiaCZ/
 * https://twitter.com/visit_czechia?lang=en
 * https://www.facebook.com/visitczechia/


 * I just wanted to inform you guys about this borderline propaganda being spread and that we should be wary of any attempts on the use of "Czechia" here. I see you're doing fine work already. Thanks very much. 2600:8805:3B01:BC30:B598:5A3A:EF7B:AAE7 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're well aware of the campaign. I've had numerous encounters with Jan Blanicky's many, MANY socks. So many that I've come to call him "Hanes". --Khajidha (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What you call "campaign" is an official recommendation of the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic! https://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/foreign_relations/public_diplomacy/digital_diplomacy/how_to_use_the_short_country_name.html

The short-form “Česko/Czechia” is preferable in cases where it is not necessary to use the full name “Česká republika/Czech Republic”.

3.1 In which cases it is NECESSARY to use the FORMAL (political) country name?

•	Official government documents •	International agreements and non-binding official documents such as MoUs •	Official top-level meetings of political representatives (table name cards in meeting rooms) 3.2 The use of SHORT country name is recommended in the following cases:

•	Cultural, social, scientific, sports (see below), economic and other presentations, and e.g. in speeches by political representatives (unless the speech is made on a highly formal occasion) •	Presentations by public figures representing cultural, social, scientific, sports, economic or other national interests •	Informal communication, correspondence, literary works, newspaper articles, geographical materials (e.g. maps) •	Promotional material presenting the country, its achievements. history and famous personalities •	Corporate promotional material

Helveticus96 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Czech government is totally irrelevant to English usage. Just as the British and American governments are totally irrelevant to Czech usage. --Khajidha (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, so US Government would be relevant! So why was the link to US Department of State deleted from the article Adoption of Czechia? I am giving it back! https://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/ez/ Helveticus96 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. US government usage is not necessarily the same as general US English. Most writing guides in the US actively discourage writing in the same style as the government. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but in the US nobody gives a flying flip what the government says about language usage. It is seen as something that is none of the government's business. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "many thanks to all", who prevent the natural fight for common sense. Your "Czech Republic" will never replace action potential of the geographic name, because it is only current state formation in Czechia. It is fantastic, how somebody can appreciate the most absurd approach in Wikipedia, to insist on the transient name of the country and think out perverted keywords, where "republic" covers also the history of the kingdom and other state formations in the history of the Czech state. Congratulations to brainless work. Czechia is an official short form name of the country, which you cannot deny. In that case, you can only erase facts, because they are not in the line of your POV. You are similar to "Socialist Youth" activists during communism. The expression " we should be wary of any attempts on the use of "Czechia" speaks clearly about your "objectivity". Helveticus96 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please tell me why are you deleting Google usage of Czechia in the part Adoption of Czechia? This should be an "open" encyclopedia? And why those personal attacks? If you take everything so seriously, why are you breaking your own rules? I am not ashamed of my identity, which I openly declare on my Wikipedia user page! Helveticus96 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As you all can see, it wasn't long for the "Czechia Initiative" to find this conversation: https://www.facebook.com/CzechiaCZ/posts/2069442576459821?__tn__=-R (shocker). This yet again proves my points. Their campaign actions show that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. When I say "we should be wary of any attempts on the use of "Czechia", I made it obvious that I was pointing the finger at you, the "Czechia Initiative". Also, I just have to say it's completely repugnant because I choose to be anonymous, this is their main point of attack against me. They even claim that I'm an "administrator" here posing anonymous. Yeah, right, suuuure. I hardly would have time to be an Administrator here, let alone have time to edit wikipedia articles. Anyway arguing with this campaign is fruitless as I have learned outside of wikipedia, so I won't waste anymore of my or anyone else's time. 2600:8805:3B01:BC30:8003:3A7D:4039:468D (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Much bigger "shocker" is this name calling! I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do. But calling people by their names is definitively a bad habit! Helveticus96 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind and explain to the interested public why are you deleting facts from Wikipedia? The paragraph is called "Adoption of Czechia", the EU adopted Czechia in all databases of Eurostat and in the official list of countries. This is just ridiculous. Helveticus96 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because the sentence you tried to add was about the purely cosmetic change to the list, the important note about actual usage is already there in the sentence before that. --Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah maybe.. probably... it is kind of repetitive. It should have been in the edit summary then. Revert without any explanation is just so rude ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion about useless dogpiling before. If you've already said that Organization X announced in March that they were adopting Czechia, you don't need to come back and detail every website, magazine, podcast, etc that they put out. The initial notice is enough. --Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the people involved are the same. Nevertheless... Chrzwzcz (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Liberal Party
Hello – R9tgokunks just wanted to give you a quick update with regards to your PRODing of the Iraqi Liberal Party article for “Speedy Deletion”. I think you may have missed that another editor deleted references with regards to the Party. I have reverted those edits and added one from Google Scholar from a third party – verifiable and reliable source, that I believe does make a claim to Notability. However, I have not removed your notice, in that though I believe this is a Notable Subject, my knowledge of Arabic Language is so limited I cannot confirm or attest to the variability of the sources. What do you think? Regards ShoesssS Talk 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources you re-added are all not applicable. Facebook is not a valid source per WP:RS and the journal entry doesn't say anything to support the sentence it is supposed to be sourcing. R9tgokunks   ⭕  04:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Utmanzai (Sarbani tribe)
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Utmanzai (Sarbani tribe), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: tribes of people generally do not fall under the purview of A7. Thank you. <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

List of endangered languages in Europe
Please comment at Talk:List of endangered languages in Europe. --T*U (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Carl Tristan Orense
Hi, I had the same problem with this editor - see my question under September 2018 on his talk page. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dab link in user space
You are, of course, free to maintain incorrect links on userspace pages. However, since many such subpages are drafts which eventually find their way to mainspace, and since there is no general mechanism for informing users that an article on one of their subpages has been disambiguated, there is no rule requiring permission for global fixes to be made to subpages. As you are now aware of the error, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to maintain it as such. bd2412 T 21:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

==* this article had corresponding articles in other WPs, including the deWP. which is considerably stricter about notability than the enWP. It would therefore not be an A7., for no indication of importance. It would certainly not be A1, which only applies if you cannot tell what the article is about. and Block user is not a reason when the article also has signifcant work fro mother good faith editors.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ARTA Records - Curriculum vitæ==
 * ARTA Records - Curriculum vitæ==

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Neewi
You should add User:Neewi to the list of suspected Blanicky socks. There was enough evidence turned up to make it highly probable that they are the same person. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , done. I'm also going down a wormhole of conspiracy and corruption. I feel like an investigative journalist. See these posts:(User_talk:Explicit, User_talk:King_of_Hearts) I think they are either the same person, and if they aren't, they definitely know each other. I think once we get them off the site we won't have these issues anymore. Especially, Blanicky in regards to editing the band and musicians he clearly works for.  -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , addendum, see also User_talk:Heptapolein. -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Budeč (Kladno District)
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Budeč (Kladno District), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has context, A7 does not apply to places and creator was not banned at the time of creation. Thank you. So Why  08:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Golden Harmony (Zlatá Harmonie)
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Golden Harmony (Zlatá Harmonie), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has context, A7 does not apply to awards and G5 requires that the user was banned at the time of creation. Thank you. So Why  08:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pavel Horák (choirmaster)
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pavel Horák (choirmaster), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: directing a famous choir indicates significance, G5 requires that the user was banned at the time of creation. Thank you. So Why  08:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jistebnice hymn book
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jistebnice hymn book, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has context, A7 does not apply to books and G5 requires that the user was banned at the time of creation. Thank you. So Why  08:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Josef Antonín Plánický
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Josef Antonín Plánický, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''claims significance, G5 previously declined. NB: Re-tagging previously declined articles can be considered disruptive and lead to sanctions.''' Thank you. So Why  08:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jan Ignác František Vojta
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jan Ignác František Vojta, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G5 requires that the user was banned at the time of creation and signifcance is indicated (cf. cs-wiki and de-wiki entries). Thank you. So Why  08:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ah Astakhova
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ah Astakhova, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance, text is hardly promotional. Thank you. So Why  08:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Zdeněk Rejdák
Hello R9tgokunks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zdeněk Rejdák, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Samuel Hain
Hello R9tgokunks, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Samuel Hain, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Poorly sourced?
Can you please clarify your reasoning behind this edit? It appears reasonably sourced to me? Thank you! DonIago (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you've failed to respond for over a week, I've reverted your removal of content. You are welcome to bring any concerns to the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

X-Men (film series)
I think you need to brush up on your WP:AGF. I reverted a single one of your edits (with an included rationale) and that's somehow disruptive? You have failed to explain why you think Amazon is not a reliable source for the existence/release of home media products (when it is used to source such email throughout Wikipedia film and television articles) and, as I also mentioned in the edit summary, if you are so convinced the extant sources are not reliable, then that entire section is unsourced and it would be more appropriate to simply remove the unsourced information. Why that warrants you going nuclear on me with warnings is a bit beyond me; a more appropriate thing to do, ala WP:BRD, would be to accept the WP:STATUSQUO (i.e. leave the article as it was before you excised huge chunk of citations) and start a discussion on the article's Talk page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

File:DesLacsBurlingtonHSlogo.jpeg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Hagee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/John_Hagee check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/John_Hagee?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former subdivision
There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. Only a few parameters regarding dissolution/death are the difference. Why an extra template? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Argument with Icewhiz
Please see WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture


A tag has been placed on Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

John Hagee
Please use edit summaries so other editors know what you are doing. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I got carried away. Usually i'm pretty good about it. My most recent edits were attempting to remove unsourced statements, bad sources, and condense the controversies section and remove redundant, undue, or POV material, also some attempts to make the prose flow better. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  02:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers.  Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits to remove bias are excellent. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mandalorian
I opened a discussion on the talk page regarding the redirects. I believe there has been significant coverage and reviews of individual episodes, therefore it should be notable enough to have individual articles. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 08:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはR9tgokunksたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 04:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)