User talk:Rolling Phantom

Hello, Rolling Phantom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Straight-twin engine have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Biker Biker (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Volvo 262C
Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Rolling Phantom, thanks for creating Volvo 262C!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding additional sources so that other editors can verify the notability of this subject.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Pickup truck
Hi! Regarding our differences on Pickup truck, WP:BRD is a guideline that recomends what to do when there is a conflict of opinion. It says to be bold and make the change (as you did). If somebody else objects then they can revert (as I did). If you still feel that your change was worthwhile then you do not repeat your change (which usually leads to many days worth of two editors reverting each other withe increasing amounts of tension and caustic comments) but instead take it to the talk page where can have have a discussion about it. I have started a discussion at talk:Pickup truck. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 21:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Cars characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldeneye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Indenor for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indenor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Indenor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Indenor


A tag has been placed on Indenor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indenor. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Feminazi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not supposed to add a commentary to my edit, why is there a comment field? This isnt a point of wiew, but an observation. Besides, you did the very same thing yourself as you reverted my edit. If "feminazi" is used by someone as a pejorative directed against all feminists, these "someone" are a minority comparable to the feminazis themselves. Without the distinction I added the article appears biased and sabotaged by individuals that fit the true definition of the term. Therefore, I will re-revert your revert and add a suitable reference to my edit. Should you revert it again, it will not change the truth, only tell the truth about the editor. Rolling Phantom (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to add commentary to the article. Your "suitable reference" is Quora? There are few worse sources, and I say that as a regular contributor to Quora, that you could have chosen. As the article's references establish, the term is used to attack all kinds of feminists, from the actual radicals to boring old married guys like myself. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I ask again, if I am not suppose to add commentary to the article, why are you doing the exact same thing yourself? Would you prefer I use this: as a reference instead? As I said, the term "feminazi" is not normally used to attack all kinds of feminists (other than by a similar type of individuals), and certainly not a boring old married guy or woman that just wants gender equality. There are just some 974 thousand google hits for "feminazi vs feminist" that proves your statement wrong and makes the article look ridicolous in its political correctness, but I guess that isnt enough to prove my point then. Sorry that I tried. Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Christmas, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, that is just an excuse and even a pretty bad one. I can see no reason to label my edit as "original research" other than that you personally dont want to regard the embedded source as "reliable". What is a reliable source to you? Im Norwegian and know as a fact that we celebrated Yule in Scandinavia long before christianity. I can try to find a more scientific source if you wish. As for all sources on the subject, there are quite many... Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel free to read the last paragraph of the lede. It starts, "The celebratory customs associated in various countries with Christmas have a mix" as what you're discussing is already well-sourced in the article and discussed in the opening paragraphs. If you want it to be more prominent, you'll have to gain WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It does, but the short description in the introduction which I edited only covers a portion of what the midwinter fiest now coined as "Christmas" really is. This is one of the most if not the most important part of any article. That christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth does not in any way tell the full truth about the subject. Many pagan cultures had celebrations around the same time of the year and continued the tradition after the introduction of christianity. The priests simply couldnt stop that, and as a smart move chose to join when they couldnt beat. Pagan customs were mixed with christian elements and became the "christmas" of today. The jewish holiday "hanukka" is also around the same time so mr. Christ chose a strategic time to be born on. Go figure.

The intro implies that the celebration of "christmas", other than in the name, was introduced by christianity. That simply isnt the case. Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh and do read the two Norwegian articles on the subject, in Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk. Google Translate will provide a close to accurate translation. Just paste the URL and click the translated URL that comes up in your language.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit warring over this will not result in you getting your preffered version in because of the way WP:3RR works. Discuss on talk page please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What? So a source that should be reliable enough isnt valid to replace YOUR preferred version? Who are you to decide that? Are you some kind of "over editor"? If Wikipedia has such ones Id like to find one. Please tell me more. Rolling Phantom (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Besides, you act like a couple of smart guys. My edit was reverted first so normally you would reach the 3 revert limit first. But there are two of you. If I revert one more time, maybe a third comes along. But then maybe someone higher up will look into the matter? Rolling Phantom (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I wrote? Let me make it clear to you: THE CONTENT YOU WANT TO MAKE PROMINENT IN THE FIRST SENTENCE IS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE LEDE . It doesn't need to be added again and if you want to change consensus, you'll have to discuss it on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The no.wiki article reflects your view because you changed it yesterday to reflect your view. Doug Weller  talk 16:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I sure did and intended to correct the English page as well. I have also corrected articles that described religious faith as truth. The difference is that the Norwegian moderators thank me for the edit, while the English ones revert it. Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christmas; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.