User talk:Pishcal

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Pishcal}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.

homicide

on the garner page, negligent homicide does imply wrongdoing, no? please correct or help understand your understanding of negligent homicide. thanks. (BCEagle23 00:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghavens (talk • contribs)

I just added the citation man, someone else added that part. Pishcal — ♣ 20:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago 'L'

The reason why I deleted the information on the 2400-series on the Chicago 'L' article is due to them being retired and the information now being out-of-date. The article doesn't have any paragraphs on any other retired series of cars; that information is covered in the Chicago 'L' rolling stock article. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) k[reply]

Potato Chip

Thanks for your message, maybe it wasn't vandalism but an unregistered user adding "London, England" after the origin didn't do anything for the article and was not factual in the least. Regards Phil aka Geotek (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username

You messaged my calling me out on my username. I hope I can reply to you here. Well, I don't see my name as being offensive or disruptive. It is just silly. Technically speaking it is the name of a planet, so I don't think anyone will feel offended. But anyways, if I do have to change, I will.

Sorry for asking, but are you an administrator? I searched for your name in the admin list and I could not find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PM ME URANUS (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, and it's perfectly fine to talk to me here. I figure that your username isn't in true violation of the rules, I just wanted to warn you and let you know about the policy. I'm not an administrator, I was just browsing through the recent changes when I saw your username. Thanks a lot for the comment, and I don't think you'll have to change your name. Thanks for your contributions. Pishcal (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok! You kind of scared me for a moment. Well, I hope administrators will be as nice to me as you were :) space enth (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh by the way. When I signed my message, it says "space enth" as my username. What does that mean? I see PM ME URANUS everywhere else space enth (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might have set up a custom signature in your preferences page. You can find it at Special:Preferences under the "Signature" section. Pishcal (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh, right. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm still learning how this works. Thanks dude:)PM ME URANUS (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Babys

Thank you Pishcal for taking an interest in - and bringing to an end - the edit war between persons who are believed to be part of a new entity calling themselves The Babys and the historical version of the 70s group which was believed to have been started by Michael Corby and music entrepreneur Adrian Millar. A fresh pair of eyes belonging to a different generation may like to look into the history of this remarkable group which eventually produced two top flight musicians John Waite and Tony Brock. Your judgment may be of value to the two warring parties! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.29.82 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

Welcome to STiki

Hello, Pishcal, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Information about STiki, including:
- Using STiki and its hotkeys
- Comparison with other tools
Information about vandalism on Wikipedia

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM Request / user flags

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I also removed the autopatrolled flag from your account; this will have no impact on your editing -- it is only used in marking newly created articles for article reviewers. This is normally enabled for users that create many new articles (>50). If you end up being a heavy new article creator drop a request over at WP:PERM. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superdiversity

Thanks for trying to help. I replied to your comment. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your eyes open .It is not copied article .If you thing title is same .So,I think you have a normal brain .Every article have a same title but the content is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdevelopers (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halmahera Sea languages

Hi, Pishcal. That's just an artefact of moving the page. I made a bot request to remove the parentheses. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RockyBytes.com

Another "SEO specialist" trips up. :-D Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I saw what he was removing it's pretty obvious what he's trying to hide. At least he was smart enough to not name his account after his company. Pishcal — ♣ 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens

It is easy to understand you thought I was kidding when you saw that I created 40 articles in 24 hours. I understand why he came to that conclusion and don't blame you for that, but your error was that you didn't contact me to ask an explanation. But I was serious on this, because it is part of a larege project that I'm working on for quite a while. Your second error was that you nominated 40 articles all together without giving any criteria that would allow to discern between articles to keep and those to delete. I have asked you such criteria from the first day, but you still haven't given any helpful hint in regard. Unfortuntely you were led to nominate Pantacles of Athens and other articles for deletion, because you ignored a number of facts and I want to list them here. So you didn't know or didn't consider that:

... that Pantacles was the first athlete from Athens to win at Olympia.
... that Pantacles was apparently the first to win two running competitions at the same Olympiad.
... that Pantacles was the first athlete in history to defend his title four years later.
... that many others who have been nominated for deletion have similarly interesting specific situations.
... that every article I created has very specific categories in which it appears.
... that many of these articles are (or will be) linked in specific pages, especially those regarding the provenience of the athletes (like Aegium).
... that many of these articles have already been expanded and will see further expansion in the last week (which makes this procedure either obsolete or makes it even more necessary to define criteria that haven't been given.)
... that all articles are on winners of the stadion race, which means they won the most important competition at their respective Olympiad.
... that their names were used by Greek historians and chronologers to name each Olympiad and define the respective period of four years, as is very clearly explained here: Olympiad.
... that these articles tend to complete a work started about three years ago by User:Francois-Pier with his excellent list on the Olympic winners of the Archaic period.
... that this list (and the three following) was never completed as originally planned, due to the large amount of work it requires and the lack of collaboration, and that my work on the articles nominated for cancellation served to correct errors and fill gaps in Francois-Pier's work.
... that all these articles are part of a large project on which I've been working for weeks and which is by now about 2/3 of completion.
... that all these articles are invoked in a calendar module Module:Year in other calendars which is now online on Wikipedia, although not yet complete, because I'm still working hard on assembling the data. I suggest that you verify the output in pages like 776 BC, 600 BC, 500 BC, 496 BC or 4 BC.
... that there is still a number of red links in that calendar, which means that more articles need to be created.
... that all the names mentioned above are still recorded after 2000 years which means they have stood the test of time.
... that Wikipedia thousands of stubs on modern athletes from all nations, who never even made it to the Olympic games, which have never been nominated for deletion, although their articles give much less information than mine and their names are already forgotten after a decade or two, for example Anthony Ketchum and half of the runners on the table in that page.
... that there is a good reason why these articles are not deleted, because applying such a measure would turn hundreds of tables into a barren red desert.
... that it is quite arrogant from a modern point of view to say that Anthony Ketchum (a.o.) deserves a page on Wikipedia and Pantacles of Athens not, because he is more than 2500 years dead.
... that there are very few contributors on Ancient Greek History active on Wikipedia and that we might need help rather than cancellation requests which will have the only effect to drive people away.

I know that some people enjoy undoing other people's work, but I still hope that you do not belong to this category. I therefore repeat that it would be a kind gesture to reconsider your request at the light of the new information and close the procedure, because that would allow me to get back to my work on the calendar data. Thanks for your attention.

"Ignorance is no shame, but it is a shame not to learn.
— Plato

--Hyphantes (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copy pasting your argument here, I guess. I addressed what I think of this post over at the Afd, but because you added a few points in I'll just say this: as User:Qwertyus has said, your nomination of Anthony Ketchum was WP:POINTy behaivor, plain and simple. In fact, it's the first example on that page of what IS POINTy behaivor. I guess I'll save the rest for the Afd. Pishcal — ♣ 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting something wrong here: it was you who commented on User:Qwertyus decision, not me. I have never commented on it nor will I, because I can find no wrong in it. So I think you're only trying to make a point in order to avoid responding at the light of the new evidence produced. Could you please comment on this Olympiad or this 696 BC or this 692 BC? Feel free to do it here or over at the other discussion.--Hyphantes (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take offense to this, because it's not meant to be offensive, but is english your first language? I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying and I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Yes, it was me who commented on what User:Qwertyus said, not you. I'm not sure how that changes anything. I'm very surprised you don't see how your behavior was WP:POINT: what you did is the first example on that page. Also, I don't understand your "evidence", especially you just pointing to those articles, but that's for the Afd. Pishcal — ♣ 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you actually have some problem with the English language, because when we say it that usually refers to the last object mentioned. The last object mentioned in the previous sentence was "decision" and I said that I can find no wrong in it, that is the decision (sic!). To say it plain and clear: I agree with it. All the contrary of what you understood!--Hyphantes (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you're correct, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Pishcal — ♣ 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Martin and Son

Hi, thanks for editing the HJ Martin and Son page. I'm working to address the concerns you flagged. It is no longer an orphan, and I was able to link it to another Wikipedia page. I did try to write this as non-promotionally as possible - was there anything in particular that seemed promotional in nature? I was just trying to list the business components, and based it on other business profiles from within the state like Menards. Still working on finding outside links for some of this material. It's been a few years since I've done these pages and my original account was deleted, probably due to inactivity (MkeLaurie).CdbgLaurie (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CdbgLaurie: No problem, and I must say that for a new article yours is much above the average quality. I tagged the article as reading like an advert because the article has some excessive information on the company that may not be too relevant in an encyclopedia article, but it's a minor concern. If you need any help, you can put the {{help me}} template on your user page, or you can ask me here on my talk page. Pishcal — ♣ 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'm doing this one as a favor to a friend and not in a professional capacity. It's a process and I told him to expect feedback from an editor. I do not know the etiquette of wiki anymore - will you remove the tags when the issues are corrected or can I do that when I feel I have satisfied the concerns? I personally do not think it is there yet, maybe closer on some elements like its no longer an orphan. Thanks again. CdbgLaurie (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CdbgLaurie: I'd be fine with you removing the tags when you feel the article has addressed the concerns raised. Pishcal — ♣ 23:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and deleted some of the more tedious information about the company (like the repeated addition of the divisions by name) and tried to revise any phrasing that seemed like overt advertising or promotional. I've also gotten the vast majority of sources switched to secondary sources. The only ones I kept as primary sources were to the company timeline, which is is a factual primary source that really isn't open to any sort of interpretation. Would you consider removing the tags after giving it a quick review? Thank you. CdbgLaurie (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CdbgLaurie: The page is looking good, and really one of the only problems that I see with it now is minor wording issues. The company history section talks about growth and expansion a lot, and some sections use business language frequently like "new opportunities", "relationships", etc. While these phrases aren't inherently bad or promotional, they can certainly read that way to some people, and I would say that they could be improved. Pishcal — ♣ 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So noted - I made some additional revisions to address this. Thanks again for working with me on this.CdbgLaurie (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is okay to do this, but I am going to attempt to remove that flag. I believe I have addressed the issues you noted and improved the page. If this is not okay with you, please let me know and I will undo the undo. Thanks again for the guidance!CdbgLaurie (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Schimke, M.D.

Re: this: really? I'd say the article contains several credible claims of significance. The fact that the are not cited is a different problem, but speedy was not appropriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Yes, that speedy was hasty, looking at a news search the subject of the article is clearly notable. The reason I speedied it is because it's a completely uncited BLP and there was some promotional language. Pishcal — ♣ 16:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turns out to be a copyvio of the man's obituary. (So, BLP doesn't apply, but copyvio still does!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Doesn't WP:BLP apply to recently deceased people? Either way, thanks for the heads up, I'll be more careful in the future. Pishcal — ♣ 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reading indicates that WP:BLP only applies to contentious material about recently deceased people (to avoid issues with their survivors, no doubt). Nothing in Dr. Schimke's article was contentions. WP:BLPPROD does not appear to apply to the recently deceased. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are mentioned in the Guardian

Don't know if you saw this yet, but it briefly mentions your removal of edits by David Coburn. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, I had almost forgotten about that. I remember at the time thinking that some newspaper would surely pick up on what he was doing and write something about it. Thanks for notifying me. Pishcal — ♣ 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

@Pishcal: How do I stop the page Suhani Shah from getting merged or deleted?--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the article isn't up for deletion. I added that merge template because you performed what's called a cut and paste move, where you copy and paste the content of one page into another. Doing this is undesirable, because it splits the page history of an article, which has to be kept for copyright purposes. Your article isn't up for deletion, an admin will likely just merge the page history from your draft. Pishcal — ♣ 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Pishcal — ♣ 20:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of tagging

Thanks for patrolling new pages, a vital and under-appreciated task, but please don't tag newly created articles with WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 too soon after creation. While things like copyright violations and attack pages need to be tagged at once, new contributors often put in a word or two and then click "Save page" to see how it looks: it is discouraging and BITEy if a speedy-deletion template pops up at once. Arun Shajan M just now doesn't look at all promising, but still you should make a note of the title and wait at least 10 - 15 minutes before tagging. See {{uw-hasty}}. There is general advice about new page patrolling at WP:NPP, and about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The article Amanda Kerfstedt was tagged as unreferenced just seconds after it was created, before I had the time to add references. It was also tagged as an unreferenced bio of a living person, when the person, in fact, died almost one hundred years ago. Such mistakes can easily be avoided, if you avoid this high speed. --Aciram (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize User:Aciram. I would usually recommend creating a draft article to avoid such things, but I recognize that I have made a mistake. Pishcal — ♣ 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I agree I should have added the references immediately. The tag is seldom relevant for my articles because I usually write articles about people died at least e century ago ^^ Cheers!--Aciram (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad there's no hard feelings, and again, I apologize. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 15:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass murder / Andreas Lubitz

This is a discussion on your recent revert of an edit to include A. Lubitz as an example of a mass murderer. I think with relevations that were released by the French investigation team shortly after the incident and recent relevations of today (rehearsed the autopilot modifications in an earlier flight) it is now established with relatively little doubt that the term 'mass murder' applies.

Some reliable sources that use the term are:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/andreas-lubitz-kneejerk-reaction-to-911-enabled-mass-murder-10137173.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11501981/Andreas-Lubitz-inside-the-mind-of-a-mass-killer.html

In addition, a list of spree killers that is directly linked from the article 'Mass murder' contains other instances where a pilot has taken down a plane deliberatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.110.164 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also simple using the definition of the term 'Mass murder' in the same article

1. act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time [Applies to the incident] 2. murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. [Applies to the incident] 3. mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others [Applies to the incident] 4. Many acts of mass murder end with the perpetrator(s) dying by suicide or suicide by cop. [Applies to the incident] 5. Mass murderers differ from spree killers, who kill at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders and are not defined by the number of victims, and serial killers, who may kill people over long periods of time. Mass murder is the hypernym of genocide, which requires additional criteria. [Applies to the incident]

I do not see any aspects of the Germanwings incident which would allow it to classify it as anything else but an event of mass murder.

(edit conflict)The source you provided didn't refer to him as a mass-murderer. As you now have sources that do, feel free to add it back into the article. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I will wait a little more until the investigation is finalized and then maybe re-introduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.110.164 (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suhani Shah

@Pishcal: Why did you remove the external links from the article Suhani Shah? I see many pages with such edits.--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: Please read Wikipedia's policy on external links, more specifically the section on links that should be avoided. Links to social networking sites should not be placed in a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not social media. Other articles may have external links, but external links that add to the encyclopedic content of an article are normally considered acceptable. Pishcal — ♣ 04:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hancock (CEO)

Hi Pishcal, thanks for your help looking at my sandbox for Peter Hancock. Regarding your edits, I mistakenly linked the wrong citation for the International Advisory Board of BritishAmerican Business. It should have pointed here so I went back and fixed the reference and added it back in. As for his position as head of Key National Banking, as far as I can tell, that was the former name of what is now known as KeyCorp's Key Corporate Bank (link here). That said, I'm not sure how essential that position is to his story, and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter. Thanks again for the help! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I was wondering why that one website was linked twice. As for his position as head of Key National Banking, I agree, I don't really think that's too relevant to the article, and I would just leave it as "he worked with keycorp", or something along those lines. As of now your draft is looking pretty good, but I would definitely ask for someone elses opinion over at WP:RfC or at WP:3O. Pishcal — ♣ 02:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pishcal, hope you've been well. If you've got the time, would you mind adding this photo to the BLP? I uploaded it to commons on behalf of AIG, but like to refrain from directly editing the pages I'm involved in. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Faculties, I'll get right on it, and thank you for asking me, I feel flattered. Pishcal — ♣ 19:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Do you think it qualifies to be upgraded from a stub? I think it's a clear improvement from where it was in April, but where the line is drawn is a bit unclear to me.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Pantacles of Athens

Good morning, Pishcal. When you have a moment, could you add a bolded "Merge" notation to your comment @12:38, 28 April 2015? It will make it easier for any passing administrator to take a head count before diving into the discussion and possible closing this mess. With your !vote, I believe the head count stands at 10–5 in favor of a merge. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mess" is the right word.--Hyphantes (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, haven't been on in a while so sorry for the delayed response. Pishcal — ♣ 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Pantacles of Athens has closed

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens discussion has closed as a consensus "merge." The closing admin, SamWalton, identified four of the 40 articles for further talk page discussion whether they should be merged to the list or maintained as stand-alone articles: Talk:Dandes of Argos, Talk:Philinus of Cos (athlete), Talk:Oebotas of Dyme and Talk:Eurybus of Athens. Your input is requested on those article talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

funny stuff

Stahp deleting my stuff

Stop vandalizing pages. Pishcal — ♣ 17:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Just having a little bit of fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit button is there for a reason. So people can have fun and be free to have fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit button there is so that people can build an encyclopedia. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia, there is no reason for you to be here, and your editing privileges may be removed. Pishcal — ♣ 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know all of my friends edit pages here all the time and they never get in trouble. It's just called having a little bit of fun. Have a sense of humor. All I am doing is joking around — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say I find it particularly amusing. By the way, for as long as you're around here, could you please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of all of your posts? Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get it. I thought it was funny. No harm meant. I just meant to have a little bit of fun and make people laugh. ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you like a mod or something? ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mod, and I do have a sense of humor. However, as I've said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for jokes. While you may find your edits funny, I find them disruptive. I encourage you to stick around and actually try to improve Wikipedia, and maybe you could see where I'm coming from. Pishcal — ♣ 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to improve it. I try to make it appeal to those with a sense of humor. I'm not trying to be a troll, just trying to be funny.

If you want to cut down on spamming, make a jokes/spam page ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC) SO how can you yell at me if you aren't even a mod? ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all should make a trolling page ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should not be funny or appeal to people's sense of humor. I can imagine that when most people go online and are looking for something funny, Wikipedia is probably not the first place to look. It is, however, the first place many look when they are looking for information on a subject. Also, what do you mean "how can you yell at me if you aren't even a mod"? Just because I myself do not have the power to block you does not mean that if you continue to vandalize pages I can't report you to an administrator. I would prefer not to do this, and so again I encourage you to stick around and try to improve the encyclopedia in a more helpful manner, ie not adding "humor". Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 17:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry bruh ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cool? ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold any anger towards you personally so if you refrain from vandalizing pages in the future then yes, we are cool. Pishcal — ♣ 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I swear it won't happen again ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi....

ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

restore all my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTheHedgehog1922 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted my article a second time? I added links to personal pages of the musician

att: Pischel

16 June Dear Pishcal I did reply to one of the messages I was left but I have no idea if this was to you or someone else - this whole process of responding seems overly complicated and I have no idea how to respond on my or your page. I din't set up my page - my gallery did and they asked me to check it and alter it as I saw fit. So I did as it wasn't particularly well written or accurate in places but these were very MINOR edits. and I don't understand the problem on this occasion in doing this, despite having read yours and others comments. Yours Janette Kerr

PS what are four tildes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteKerr (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JanetteKerr: The problem with your gallery setting up your page and you editing it is written out in detail over at the conflict of interest guidelines: when you have a conflict of interest (editing pages about you, someone you know personally or your employer), it may be difficult to write and make your edits in a neutral manner. But don't worry, having a conflict of interest doesn't mean that you can't affect what's on your page; you can by following the instructions over at the conflict of interest guide. Now I know I've posted some links to pages with a lot of information on them, but if you look at anything please look at that guide. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and typing four tildes (~) is the way to sign your posts so that others can easily find and leave a message on your talk page, like the message you've left for me. Just type ~~~~ at the end of a post and it will automatically be signed. Remember to not do this in the main article space, however. Pishcal — ♣ 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pishcal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi

I know that I am supposed to write to you somewhere else but I cannot work out where! You have left me messages regarding my Wikipedia page _ Janette Kerr - that a gallery set up. I have attempted to update it as the information is out of date but it appears that this is frowned upon. So I suppose all I can do is send the gallery to amend text and ask them to put it up.

I also cannot understand the information about references - it is written in such complicated language. It's all very well for people who use this sort of editing language all the time but not for someone like me.

Sigh,

Best wishes Janette — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteKerr (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Wikipedia is severely biased and promoting far right and fascist opinions only

Everyone that tried to write at Croatian Wikipedia will tell you that there is no any way one can freely write well known and quoted facts that are against right wing parties, fascism, in general against biased views of Croatian admins. 213.149.51.54 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pishcal. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to New AI-Labelling Campaign for Newcomer Sessions

Hello, I'm reaching out to you because I saw that you signed up as a labelling volunteer at Wikipedia:Labels/Edit quality. I'm starting a new project that builds on Edit quality, to predict Newcomer quality. That is, to predict the damagingness and goodfaithness of "sessions" (multiple related edits) of users within 1 day of their registration. With this AI trained, we could help automatically distinguish betewen productive and unproductive new users. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this new labelling campaign and label a few sessions I would be very grateful. In addition if you have any feedback or discover any bugs in the process I would appreciate that too. You can find the project page at Wikipedia:Labels/Newcomer_session_quality or go directly to labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ and look for the campaign titled "Newcomer Session quality (2018)". Thanks so much!

Maximilianklein (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English

kwndbdnxokanan 2409:40E5:93:6254:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]