Jump to content

User talk:Farolif

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carter00000 (talk | contribs) at 08:40, 29 October 2023 (→Introduction to contentious topics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Farolif! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC).(UTC) talk 13:26, (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

George Galloway

Really it should be in today's current events rather than Thursday's as the result was announced in the early hours of this morning, but I suppose there's an argument which says he had won from the moment the polls closed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

In a recent edit to the page Fifty Shades of Grey, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. — JonCॐ 16:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United States foreign aid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by U.S. economic aid vs GDP until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Theopolisme TALK 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Central African Republic Bush War

An article that you have been involved in editing, Central African Republic Bush War, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Keitsist (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Economy of Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please do not keep removing useful references from the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You have deleted relevant material from Teen Witch that is supported under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film Box office: "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why." The factual item in question displays box office competition and is one of many possible reasons why the film flopped at the box office, but is still popular 24 years after its release.

Your second deletion cites Wikipedia:Coatrack which is an essay not a guideline. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Your first uncited deletion was subjective with the comment "remove irrelevant box office item, extra lines".

Your edits are unhelpful, please stop.009o9 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Economy of Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. One more revert at the article and I will report you at WP:3RRN for longterm edit-warring as well as a breach of WP:3RR Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Courtesy notice

The report at WP:3RRN concerning your edit-warring at Economy of Greece is here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, as you did at Economy of Greece. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Dame and Sheikh

Hi there,

Sorry, I don't get it what bothers you in the Sir, Dame and Sheikh titles. For me it's apparent that it differs from Mr as 'sheikh' is a title granted to a person by the sovereign (at least in the Middle Eastern monarchies in question, where some of their leaders hold that title), and 'Sir' is the style that signifies that the person was elevated to a knighthood. While on the other hand Mr is not a title, just a form of address. So could you please elaborate what confusion you think this causes? ZBukov (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "Mr." is not the strongest example. But what about my other presented case of "Dr."? Not to mention "Atty", "Rev.", or a slew of other titles that are earned by the person in question?
Also, 'Sheikh' isn't always a title granted to a person from a sovereign. The word can also denote a scholar of Islam, as well as a person's actual name, as in the case of Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina - hence my reasoning for the title being confusing to some. Farolif (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverend is not a title either, just a style (form of address). The sheikhs in question apparently hold this title as members of ruling families. But even if they gained their title by virtue of being scholars, this is just no confusion, as they are prime minister or emir nevertheless. The fact that there is a Liberian politician called Prince Johnson (Prince being his given name) doesn't change the fact that there are people who bear the royal title of prince. So still this seems to be no reason to delete valid information from Wikipedia. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there any reason to impose this information on the various articles about state leaders (this one and this one, at current count). Which brings up my alternate point from my first edits to this effect that the titles are unnecessary in the context of these pages. Valid or not, the trivia seems to serve no real purpose, since the persons are "prime minister or emir nevertheless".
(BTW - Reverend is a title. The WP article even acknowledges it as such based on some sources. And why do you continue to ignore my example of the title of "Dr."?) Farolif (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to your comments in the latest edit summaries, I can just as easily advise you to create a whole new article about formal stylings and titles for current state leaders - including the various UN protocols. Farolif (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Your recent editing history at Hun Sen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

If a citation is reliable, and the one you are reverting is, your opinion of that mainstream media presentation does not constitute a reason for you to revert or undue that information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"13 years old"

Btw the study I linked to is not thirteen, but five, years old. It was published in 2008. --Yalens (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the study was 13 years old, I was referring to the 1999-2000 data which it was based on. Farolif (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC United States Congress members who died in office was accepted

United States Congress members who died in office, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I apologize if my remarks on any of the wiki talk pages were inappropriate. My comments were made in the hope that they would contribute towards the betterment of the article in whose talk page they occurred. I shall do my utmost to abide by the rules.

Is it appropriate to highlight any factual errors that may exist in an article?

Sincerely,

Vilhelmo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilhelmo (talk • contribs) 13:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can cite the sources that dispute an article's claims, and aren't simply playing semantics or sharing your opinion on the subject, then you can introduce any factual errors you believe to exist on Wikipedia. Also, it would have been acceptable to respond to this discussion on your own talk page. Farolif (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ramis

Thanks for making it worse. Rusted AutoParts 00:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not worse. I have attempted a temporary fix that retains information. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source of spending data for the table at Federal taxation and spending by state

Hi. Last november you updated the tables at Federal taxation and spending by state. Thanks for doing that. I'm having difficulty verifying the values in the spending column from the source for that column, http://www.transparency.gov/state-summary-tabular?tab=By+Location&tabletype=statesummary. Did you have another source or has the format changed since November? I'm going to solve the issue by updating to the most current year, but that source now only shows trillions in one decimal place accuracy and your changes included updating the column to display whole millions and I'd rather not lose accuracy by using one decimal trillions for both columns. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the source's methodology for calculating the per state spending data had changed. I've updated the tables accordingly. Farolif (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks! Celestra (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congress members who died in office Article

I have proposed that the United States Congress members who died in office article you were involved in the creation of should be expanded to include members who died prior to the 1990s. If you have any additional information regarding members of Congress in office prior to 1990, I would encourage you to add it to the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Wonderland murders. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Phillips. 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) 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by-elections

Sorry, but I think you'll find by-elections do come under the remit of Current events. We have a long-standing consensus of covering them here, in whichever country they happen to take place, and yesterday's was probably more notable than most because of the outcome. This is Paul (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly know nothing about UK politics or the events that are notable in that country, and seem to be just being disruptive for the sake of it. Please stop removing content from pages because you don't personally like it. There has been consensus to include these events for as long as I can remember, and if you don't agree with that you need to discuss it at the appropriate venue. I would also draw your attention to the three revert rule as someone else restored the content, which you promptly removed again. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the venue where this consensus which you speak of was reached? Farolif (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly demonstrating a degree of ineptitude. I found several international sources (Washington Post, New Zealand Herald, The Australian, etc) mentioning this topic within a couple of minutes. You obviously didn't look. This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Commonwealth Realms are still sufficiently attached to the UK to report on political ongoings in the motherland. As for Washington Post, the story is found on their world portal parked behind the headline about dozens of people dying from toxic poisoning during Eid celebrations in Pakistan. Yet there is no attempt to mention that story on the Current Events page, is there? Farolif (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well fix it then! Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly editing in bad faith and will continue to find excuses to remove the information whatever references are provided, so I'm not going to argue with you any more. This is Paul (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've reinstated the Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 to the current events page for today. Per above discussion, you are hereby cautioned that should you remove it again, I will see this as a breach of WP:3RR and/or WP:DE and act accordingly. If you really object to its appearance there, the talk page is there to be used. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The talk page has already been used for this purpose not long ago: Portal talk:Current events/Archive 8#Clacton by-election, 2014. Farolif (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. I agree with you that not all by-elections are notable enough to appear on the current events page. However, both Clacton and Rochester & Strood are. Future by-elections will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mjroots on this. Although by-elections seem to have been included in the past, I'm not sure all of them are notable enough to appear. The last two were, however, and received significant international coverage as demonstrated. Now to another issue, what is your reason for objecting to the inclusion of details of the Victoria state election, other than which countries happen to be reporting it? This is Paul (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your justification for adding the Victorian election details, other than which countries (more pointedly, which select publications) happen to be reporting it? Farolif (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your justification for removing it, other than your own personal objection, which once again is what this seems to be about. What are these "select publications" you mention? What makes them select in your opinion? Your behaviour over the previous issue demonstrated that despite your argument, the number of international sources provided was irrelevant as you were apparently objecting for objection's sake. If you disagree with the inclusion of a piece of information then you need to discuss it on the Portal's talk page rather than edit warring with others. This is Paul (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for removing it - how about the fact it is a state election, not a national election? These aren't even listed in the Current Events sidebar. As for publications outside the UK & Australia covering this story - why would an informed reader be surprised that Bloomberg pays attention to the politics of a country with a widely-traded currency? The article you cited in an effort to prove US coverage of the Victoria election mainly focuses on what the election says about Abbott's government and particularly its budget policies. I'm sure investors and speculators - which Bloomberg and publications like it cater to - would find the analysis interesting, but not the typical Wikipedia reader. Farolif (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, we can expect this to be covered by the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, maybe it'll even get a mention on CNBC? An item doesn't have to appear in the sidebar to be included on that page, and Wikipedia is not about winning. I've no doubt that if/when this appears in other US publications, you'll still find some reason to object. I really don't know what your game is, but life is too short to argue. This is Paul (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the story doesn't get buried on those other news sources like it is on Bloomberg's site, then we can discuss the importance of the Victorian election to readers outside of Australia and the UK. My point about the sidebar was that the function is generally reserved for nationwide elections, which Victoria is not. In the meantime, I cannot help but notice the hypocrisy of your trumpeting the "not about winning" aspect of Wikipedia while at the same time reverting a completely unrelated change of mine on the Current Events page. Farolif (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Winning had nothing to do with it. While the sidebar mentions the event at the moment, it will be updated, and anyone coming back to the page in a few weeks/months from now would not find it. This is Paul (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is looking for past elections, then they can always link to this article from the Current Events election sidebar: National electoral calendar 2014. Even after the sidebar heading gets updated for 2015, the user will still be able to search for previous years' elections by using the templates in the appropriate article. Hope that eases your concerns some. Farolif (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why mention the Uruguayan election? Because it's not in the sidebar? Under that theory we wouldn't have mentioned the US mid-term elections because they were in the sidebar. 'Tis a strange logic you have there, and perhaps a good reason to take up the RFC advice. This is Paul (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that they were national elections, the U.S. mid-term elections saw a fundamental change in the party composition of the federal government, had obvious international significance, and made top news in many countries. Other than that, I can't help but notice that you are now ignoring the issue about the Victoria election after I raised the point that it was not a major story even in the US-based Bloomberg publication. Smoke & mirrors much? Farolif (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan election

You have been removing reference to the Moldovan election on the article for 30 November 2014 because it is on the sidebar. My view which is consistent with current and past practice is that national elections are inherently notable and worth mentioning in articles on current affairs. The list on the sidebar is an aide-memoire for editors who wish to refer readers to the detailed article for more information. Please do not remove reference on this page until you have left a message on the article talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to use the sidebar as an aid to remind editors to post the results, but a simple notification that the elections are taking place is redundant and unneeded. Farolif (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{dead link}} tag

Hi there I noticed that you used [dead link‍] next to a working link. Dead link should only be used when the provided link is not working. For example if you can't access the given page you can use [dead link‍], not when you can't verify the content provided. So when using maintenance tags check whether it's the right thing belong in that place, otherwise cleanup editors might get confused when doing clean ups. Template:Citation_needed has a list of tags that can be used in maintenance process. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2014 (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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chamber of Deputies of Paraguay
added a link pointing to Avanza País
Senate of Paraguay
added a link pointing to Avanza País

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Deputies (Mexico)

No more reverts or I will block you next time. It is clear you not understand what you are doing. Claiming you do, but showing no proof is not understanding. For the last time:

  1. It is doing nothing.
  2. One CANNOT have template programming in articles.
  3. Whatever you think you are doing, it DOES NOT go into that infobox variable.

I have repeatedly stated why and given links. You have done nothing but revert and say nothing of any substance. I have been saying why along, you MUST discuss, which is something you have failed to do. BRD says for you NOT to revert, but discuss. Bgwhite (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only link you have given is the WP:CHECKWIKI code error #34 which simply reads:

A template programming element, such as {{{1}}}, #if or #switch, was found. They are usually not needed or a regular template can be substituted instead.

"usually" is not the same as CANNOT. This is an instance where a code is a hands-off means for the infobox to automatically indicate whether there are any current vacancies in the legislative body. It is not doing "nothing", as you continually insist otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, it is you who have done nothing but revert without any substantial explanations. Farolif (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Now you're edit warring. I said in my edit summary to go to the talk page, but you ignored that. I already have a discussion opened there. Feel free to throw your two cents in. Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party (UK)

I you are going to delete a previously existing link, whether or not it now exists, please explain that it is now a dead link - rather than a non-explanation. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on House of Lords

Hi I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to impose your opinion by making subtile changes with comments that do not reflect the source. It is tedious and unnecessary. Domdeparis (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would very much appreciate it if you tried being an editor and stopped behaving like a bot. Farolif (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The watchlist is there for that, when someone obstinately tries to impose his opinions that are not supported by the sources it's useful to be able to see the changes that he is doing, and you were caught out again doing edit warring. It seems to be something you are quite familiar with if one can judge by your talk page...Domdeparis (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you spent as much time assessing the proposed changes rather than their contributors' backgrounds, we might have avoided a great deal of this strife in the first place. Farolif (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It only takes about 15 seconds (i timed myself) to read the contents list and 2 minutes to browse certain subjects (timed myself again) on your talk page to understand how you have a need for drama...the strife is of your making and thanks to you I now understand a lot more about the way certain people think they own certain subjects and are terribly stubborn. I have also learnt some new editing skills for which i should really thank you. ...so thanks! Domdeparis (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Farolif. 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]

National Parliament of Papua New Guinea

Where did you get the new party numbers when you updated the composition here? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the official Parliament website. Farolif (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hello, Farolif! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Emerton's leave of absence

Hello! It seems to me that we have mixed information on Baroness Emerton's leave of absence from the House of Lords. Minutes of Proceedings of Monday ([1]) say that her leave of absence was ended. On the other hand, the list of ineligible peers ([2]) says that she is on leave of absence and has been since 1 December 2016. What should we think? Is Baroness Emerton on leave of absence or not? --Editor FIN (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be the first time they've made a mix-up like this on the Parliament website. I've sent an inquiry on the matter. Farolif (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have they replied to your inquiry yet? --Editor FIN (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No response & no change to the website. The House went on Easter recess yesterday, so we may have to wait a bit for a resolution on this minor item. Farolif (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She is returned to the House after the general elections. Farolif (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second account

Is Farliof also you? Or is it an attempt at impersonation?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an impersonation. Probably the same individual who was recently disputing the edits on List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Farolif (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I've blocked the account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange IP reverter

Can you confirm that these two are making factually inaccurate edits? 49 was blocked for a strange pattern of reverts, so now 106 is doing the same thing but without edit summaries. I've asked them to start communicating when reverting, but my hopes aren't high. —Guanaco 10:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all disruptive editing. I was the one who reported 49 earlier this week, but the only result was the IP getting blocked for 36 hours. The person has already moved on to other locations with the same articles as their targets. Farolif (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of Maksym Shapoval

I've reverted your removal of Maksym Shapoval from the recent death list. Your rationale was that his article was created after death. I don't think it's a sufficient reason to remove a valid entry from the list, especially considering the media attention and political controversy surrounding it: [3][4]. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but...

WP:JDLI isn't a valid reason for the removal of the Chris Christie thing. [5] The story has been featured in multiple reliable references and is tied to an ongoing event in New Jersey. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No laws have been violated. Most readers are familiar with Christie's name only because of his previous presidential ambitions. I believe the common term for this kind of headline is 'clickbait'. Farolif (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Farolif. 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]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People's Representative Council/DPR RI (Indonesia)

Hello, how do you know the number of People's Representative Council member that vacant? --Hddty. (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Template:DPR RI, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hddty. (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Template:DPR RI. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hddty. (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:DPR RI. Hddty. (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hddty. (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at People's Representative Council

See the result of a complaint at the noticeboard. Though no blocks have been issued, this seems to be a case of slow edit warring. If this continues with no use of the talk page, admins may have to intervene. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing as you did to Geoffrey Hayes, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MissMinecraft (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Farolif (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 144 hours. MissMinecraft (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Get help, woman. Farolif (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't laugh if I were u. Guess who iis the one that is blocked? If u continue to vandalize, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. I'll ask some admin to do so, don't get too cocky, buddy. MissMinecraft (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start by asking C.Fred (see above). He might still be looking for an excuse to kick me off Wikipedia! Farolif (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Peoples Party

Please check the infobox at National Peoples Party (Pakistan). It is displaying an error that seems to be due to your recent edit at {{SindhPA}} which removed NPP as a valid code. I'm hoping you can fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar case is at Pakistan Muslim League (F). Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MexDep Ind

Template:MexDep Ind has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Farolif. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of military veterans in British politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Irish Regiment (check to confirm | 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) 09:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords Commission moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, House of Lords Commission, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Services Committee moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Services Committee, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: House of Lords Commission (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
It appears on the website, but there is no history of this Commission and there is no mention of such a select committee at Parliamentary Committees of the United Kingdom. Needs better context on how this came to be.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Farolif! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: House of Lords Commission (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiAviator was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
WikiAviator (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Services Committee (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by J947 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
It would be better to have coverage by online newspapers or books (to name two examples) in this article to prove this commitee's notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
J947 (c), at 06:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
1292simon (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MexSen PAN

Template:MexSen PAN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Services Committee

Hello, Farolif. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Services Committee".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hague of Richmond's leave of absence

On the page List of members of the House of Lords, I had moved Lord Hague of Richmond to the list of peers on leave of absence according to the House of Lords Minutes for 5 January 2021: https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/ItemOfBusiness?itemOfBusinessId=89895&sectionId=40&businessPaperDate=2021-01-05. After you reverted my edit, I noticed that there seems to be an error in the Minutes as he has voted in the House several times between 6 January and 14 January. --Editor FIN (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting edit examination and opinion

Greetings,

Please do visit Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie#Slander of Benazir Bhutto to examine discussed edits, if you find topic interested requesting your opinion, there.

For neutrality purpose opinion request is being made to users who significantly edited different sides of Pakistani political spectrum articles.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Creating templates for everything inflates wikipedia and makes editing considerably more complicated! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Please see my post here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Lords_Reform_Act_2014 Gavin Lisburn (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:HOL ineligible

Template:HOL ineligible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:HOLtotal

Template:HOLtotal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/Sidebar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Stop your unconstructive attitude against my sidebar inclusions. You are not correcting anything, as you try to justify yourself, but removing content that I justifiably add. You do the same with other users' edits. Stop your unconstructive attitude against my sidebar inclusions. You are not correcting anything, as you try to justify yourself, but removing content that I justifiably add. You do the same with other users' edits. Your attitude of deleting non Anglo-Saxon people who are added is not protected under any rule or MOS, but of a thought if not racist, it almost is, and that is not admissible on Wikipedia. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you're the only one mentioning anything about race, and the implication that I'm the one being prejudiced is rather peculiar coming from someone who recently removed a couple of distinctly non-Anglo Saxon people from the list, per their own convenient reasoning. It's a safe bet that if you were to look beyond your own agenda regarding the Sidebar (& probably elsewhere on WP, too), then you would notice the recent deaths which are added by myself and other editors aren't all from a single cultural/ethnic group. Fortunately, most of the other contributions to the portal – not just the RD section – are still generally aligned to the purpose of keeping the lists relevant to readers. Farolif (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, you may be blocked from editing. Disruptive editing with a hint of personal insults. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • And exactly how is it disruptive of me to update the party's current seat counts within the national/provincial legislatures? Are you disputing the numbers which I've provided? Farolif (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent deaths item

Hi Farolif, I've created this new template that may come in handy when updating the Recent deaths section in future. Through it, you can simply substitute the template wrapped around a name (linked or not) and it will automatically fetch the date from Wikidata. If their Wikidata hasn't been updated yet, if the exact date is unknown or the name has not died, it will return "?" in place of the date (which can be previewed in advance). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farolif, I was just wondering if you had any feedback or encountered any issues with this template? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neveselbert I have not given it a try yet, and I feel like the way it works is a bit backwards for the Sidebar or a similar list. If I'm understanding its intended function, then applying this template will cause a date to automatically change whenever the Wikidata item is updated? This might cause more confusion than anything else, because it would make a date suddenly show as out of order from others in the original edit, until the list is corrected after the fact. So, whether you use this template or not, it's very likely there will still need to be a revision to the list whenever a DoD changes. (What issue were you hoping to resolve by coming up with this template?) Farolif (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear Farolif, it won't automatically change whenever a Wikidata item is updated as the template is intended to be substituted, not transcluded. The output when substituted will be entirely "clean" and look exactly the same in wikitext as other entries that have not been included using the template. I wasn't really hoping to "resolve" anything exactly, it's just a convenience template that fetches information about an item that you would otherwise have to copy and paste. (I've just recently added a functionality that automatically italicises individual animals through individual animal (Q26401003).) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Visioncurve. Your recent edit(s) to the page Khanate of Khiva appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Additional information regarding the revert: The khanate had been a protectorate for only a small period of time, during the rule of Nedir shah in Iran and after the Russian conquest in the 19th century. VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 04:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Warning icon Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with Kevin Cooney. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kevin Cooney (actor)

Notice

The article Kevin Cooney (actor) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing proper en dashes to minus characters

In this edit and many others, you changed proper en dash characters to minus characters. Please do not do that.

Also, {{resize}} can't wrap multi-line content. In general, sidebar and navbox text is the right size; leave it as it is. This edit, for example, changing the text size to 99%, appears to be useless. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User talk:Jonesey95 per WP:TALKFORK.
Regarding your hasty reverts of my recent work and your message on my talk page:

{{resize}} can't wrap multi-line content. In general, sidebar and navbox text is the right size; leave it as it is. This edit, for example, changing the text size to 99%, appears to be useless.

The example you refer to isn't useless. It helps the title Abyssinian–Persian wars fit into a single line of the width-restricted campaignbox, instead of wrapping awkwardly to two lines, which the other campaignboxes are back to doing now that you've undone my edits on them. (Also, a template's title is not multi-line content!) Farolif (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Different web browsers display text at different sizes, and some editors and readers change the default font and font size, which can cause wrapping. Unfortunately, just because text wraps or doesn't wrap for you, that doesn't mean that it wraps or doesn't wrap for someone else. You can't fix everyone's display by resizing text from 100% to 99% or 97%; it just introduces unnecessary inconsistency. Please refrain from this resizing and from changing dashes to minus characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cooney (actor) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kevin Cooney (actor), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Carter00000 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farolif&oldid=1182428347"