User talk:PyroFloe

Welcome

Hello, PyroFloe, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

PyroFloe, good luck, and have fun. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests and talkpages

Hi PyroFloe, welcome to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia talkpages, new sections go to the bottom. Placing a section at the top means editors will be less likely to see it. For move requests, multiple instances of the same moves should not be opened. Instead it is better to open the requests on a single page, and leave notices on affected talkpages pointing to that single discussion. Best, CMD (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korea (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean. 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) 06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions to Haitian Vodou

Hello PyroFloe, and welcome to Wikipedia! recently, you made this change to Haitian Vodou, without adding a source. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that all content be verifiable. Where did you find the information you added to the article? Please create a citation to a reliable source as explained at Help:Footnotes, and add it to the article right after the content you added. Going forward, please let Wikipedia's Verifiability policy be your guide for all of your additions at Wikipedia. If yoiu have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my Talk page, or below with a {{reply}}. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @@Mathglot:, the information I added to the article about Guinee is from a stub former article page that I have now edited into a redirect to the country. I edited it into a redirect as I see that the only difference between Guinee (religious belief) and Guinèe (the country) is only the "e". I don't know where the former editors of that page got it from as there was no citations before I edited it into a redirect. I only moved it so as to give it more engagement and for people to add in a citation for that particular religious belief. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Unfortunately, that doesn't pass muster, and citations are required. This is not your fault; that article remained unsourced for over ten years. But, that doesn't mean that that material is okay to just shift over to a new article without sources. You're welcome, if you feel like it, to find sources for it and reinsert it into Haitian Vodou. I think your instincts about turning Guinee into a redirect, and moving the material over were good; it just needs to be sourced, is all. Thanks for your contributions, and also for your explanation of what happened in this case. I'm sure you're going to be a good and productive editor here. Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to ask me questions on my Talk page, or here if you prefer, any time.

Oh, one more thing: please check out WP:THREAD about proper use of indentation when replying to comments in discussion threads. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map

Please understand that I have tried since June 2020 to engage other editors on this matter in good faith, but received no reply. Even after having removed the map, you did not reply to either of the posts I had made on the article’s talk page. Rather than bicker about this, I would appreciate that we could discuss this back on the page. Maybe we can get a third editor involved to help us sort this out? Thanks in advance! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we resolve this, I do think that the map is very original research and needs to be updated, however I do not think that it should be removed since I think that it is vital for the article. PyroFloe (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing others (WatanWatan2020 was reported at ANI)

Hello there,

Do you realize that when you undid my publish to Arabic and thereafter published your own version, you changed nothing? What someone else added was wrong information that I removed, and when you published yours, it was the same exact thing as my pubish. What’s the point of doing that and then accusing of “history of distributive edits and POV pushing”? It makes absolutely no sense.

On top of that, you went over to Emirate of Najd and changed back the pronunciation to the wrong way. We say Najd not Nejd. You even mentioned both are correct according to Britannica after you tried using the “we say this in English” excuse. We say Najd in Arabic, it is also said in English as per listed in Britannica. 2/2 in correct spelling and pronunciation is better than 1/2, the way you are trying to push it. Please don’t run around with using an accusatory excuse to implement it your ways. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WatanWatan2020, About the Arabic language, I undid your revision as the collapsible list was more organized than the one you reverted to. You said that its the exact same thing so what seems to be the problem? On the Nejd article, I said that it was the same thing also right? If it's pronounced that way then please move the article also if you're gonna edit every single "Najd" you see. I assume good faith in your reversion, however you were reported in the admin noticeboard for disruptive edits so I boldy manually reverted. Also, how am I falsely accusing? Many editors have tried to warn you for disruptive editing in your talk page, and I see that as a bad sign. Also me making false accusations? You were blocked just a few days ago for threatening to take legal action for a WIKIPEDIA EDIT. Please understand my concerns, with regards, PyroFloe (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Arabic language, I ask you the same thing as I even inferred earlier “it’s the same thing, so what seems to be the problem?” You changed nothing; the only thing you did was add in the edit history something that I then took as a personal attack. And because the way you published it after, I felt no need to go and publish it my way because retaliation as some people like to engage in, is not the right way to go about it. I respected your publish, and you also clarified now that the drop down was more organized in your final edit; great.

The Najd issue is self explanatory.

In reference to the history of edit wars, I implement what is true and what is valid. I have changed material to the correct way that was left there incorrectly as per certain peoples’ POV pushing not being challenged. When it comes to neutral agreements, I am a big fan of this as one could see in the discussions I took part in regarding an editing matter.

I think we have clarified this matter to each other. I hope in the future you can inform me or talk to me on talk page about a matter rather than us taking it down this path as it seems more diplomatic and without it possibly leading it to any issue. In conclusion, we resolved the matter quite well. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're welcome for going to my talk page and discussing this matter, however I still do think that you should resolve all this matter in your admin noticeboard incidents, you doubling down on your arguments is unhelpful in my opinion. PyroFloe (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Saudi Arabia page, look at the separation in the Gulf of Aqabah. If one takes out out the Gulf entirely and pushes the lands together, the northwestern part of Saudi Arabia is only then bordered with the Sinai Peninsula. The consensus was the discussion I had with an editor in regards to this matter as can be seen in the history of such page.

Alright I will go check the notice board. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WatanWatan2020, if we are talking about the Gulf then how is removing Israel necessary if it is part of it? It is clear that you wanted to remove it for some reason, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula doesn't even touch the Saudi border, "if we take out the gulf", we do not do WP:CRYSTAL, has the gulf dried up? No it isn't yet, and unless for some magical reason that the gulf dries up then it will now be factual. However it has yet to dry up. PyroFloe (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking about SEPERATION here. Who is KSA seperated from due to the Gulf of Aqabah? meaning if the Gulf Aqabah wasnt there, then there would be no seperation. the northwest is cutoff by the Jordanian border in the southwest that would run right into the Sinai, thereby rendering the north and northwest border of KSA as bordered by Sinai of Egypt and Jordan. whether with the Gulf of Aqabah or without it, KSA does not border Israel in any aspect. So then how can it be cutoff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about separation here then how is removing Israel necessary? FYI It neither says that it borders Israel nor Egypt. It only says that it is ACROSS Saudi Arabia, we do not take original research as facts, only if the Gulf is gone which it is not. PyroFloe (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are literally talking about SEPERATION here; The word SEPERATION is obviously used in the sentence there. And removing Israel is necessary because we are talking about who and what Saudi Arabia borders. no? of course we are talking about who KSA borders, not about who is across. otherwise, we would then be mentioning all the east african countries that are across from KSA. To conclude, and again, if the Gulf is there (which it is) then it should only be mentioned that KSA borders the Gulf of Aqabah in the northwest. If we are talking about SEPERATION, as in this case, then KSA is only then separated from the Sinai Peninsula. These are simple facts which cannot be denied in either aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, with your arguments, Egypt should be removed also if you want to remove "across the Gulf of Aqaba" and Israel, "we are talking about KSA borders, not about who is across", Egypt doesn't border Saudi Arabia... PyroFloe (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "across the Gulf of Aqaba" or anything that is "across". you were the one to bring up this argument stating (in your words): "It only says that it is ACROSS Saudi Arabia". I informed you that no such thing is mentioned as proven now. What is mentioned is SEPERATION in which KSA is separated from the Sinai Peninsula due to the Gulf. Why is it that you want to try and keep pushing Israel into this matter when its already been proven it has nothing to do with the northwestern KSA border? the Sinai has everything to do with it, as was established already before trying to now include israel. The KSA north western border is only seperated from the Sinai by the Gulf. My argument has been clear from the very beginning. Please do not think we are in competition here. Simply stating the fact is the best option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Israel has a coastline at the Gulf of Aqaba right? PyroFloe (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You started an edit war and I will not participate in it, I will revert it once you get banned for disruptive editing filed by the administrator and pending changes reviewer. Thank you for your disruptive editing service in Wikipedia. PyroFloe (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit war? the one you initiated in which i then came diplomatically to your talk page to discuss? Yes, it is all in recording and well established reciepts. Look above, any one can as well. It will prove who initiated what and when. I understand fully well that everything is here well recorded and archived. It is for this reason that when i was blocked (only one time) it was based on false allegations and i was then immediately unblocked. This is also recorded. For you to make the threat that you will revert it once i am blocked shows which kind of character you have. I proved to you here and very clearly my position which you cannot deny after trying to use several arguments, so now you claim the "you started edit war and i will not participate in it" as a last ditch effort. Why revert and/or implement obvious wrong information? that would put you in violation of Wikipedia Guidlenes. All receipts and records are well established here on Wiki and will come to light if necessary in the future. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reply anymore as I see that you don't know what the WP:CONSENSUS guideline is, all evidences of your edit warring, disruptive editing, and false allegations are also listed on your contributions and talk page not just mine, "false allegations", you falsely accused an administrator and pending changes reviewer for sockpuppetry and meat puppetry that resulted in an admin noticeboard report that may result in you facing indefinite ban without parole. PyroFloe (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

For information (as you were involved at one point) I’ve opened this thread and given a 3rr warning to the two editors concerned, DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to the discussion, one of the editors was reported for disruptive editing, accusing an administrator for sockpuppetry, and anything else that was listed on the admin noticeboard. PyroFloe (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi PyroFloe! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Pizzagate conspiracy theory into List of "-gate" scandals. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't know realize that there is that Wikipedia policy until now. I will attribute the page next time and will now put one on both pages that I had copy edited but slightly modified. PyroFloe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cypriot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cypriot dialect.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with the Filipino articles

Why are you undoing all of my edits. The Insular Government gave priority to the American Flag whether you like it or not Kanto7 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanto7, Please provide a source of that please. Just saying "whether you like it or not" is not a good rationale. You clearly have no idea of what you are putting in articles. Adding to that, does the Puerto Rico article include an American Flag alongside the Puerto Rican flag? Of course not. PyroFloe (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will also be nominating the Niger Districts for deletion, it's clear that you haven't added a source for about half a year now and just reverting edits without adding an edit summary. PyroFloe (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have been warned by other editors for unconstructive and unsourced edits based on your talk page. Add a source if you're going to edit something substantial, and let alone create an article per WP:SOURCE and WP:PROVEIT. PyroFloe (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most historians on the subject of the Phillipine say the American flag was given priority in the Insular government. Your point on Puerto Rico is pointless as the American flag is flown alongside the Puerto Rican flag, with the Puerto Rican flag taking precedence. However you seem to be changing the flag of the Insular Government, whose official flag was the American flag. The 1919 Filipino flag was a local ensign used on ships. Kanto7 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "most historians"? you are violating WP:WEASEL and WP:PROVEIT, where is the source then? Why are you not providing a source? My point on Puerto Rico is pointless? Put an American flag on the article of Puerto Rico then, let's see what other editors think. I'm gonna report you to the admin noticeboard for disruptive and unsourced edit warring. You are just adding information without any source whatsoever. PyroFloe (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanto7, ensign used for ships? WP:PROVEIT PyroFloe (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Youtube Video by TravelFilmArchive shows the American and Phillipine flags. Search it up Kanto7 (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you are joking or not but YOUTUBE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE per WP:RSPYT. Adding to that, basing just from videos that show both flags does not mean that it is officially a flag. It requires a law and you are not providing that specific law. PyroFloe (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Kanto7 (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanto7, With consensus finally being reached, I will be reverting the unsourced edits you added. Please do not do this kind of edit warring again. I see good faith in your edits and simply not adding sourced material is in violation of Wikipedia policy and may get you blocked if done again. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Hello. You recently used a "close RfC" template on a thread that was not an ordinary discussion page thread that, although some users posted "support" or "oppose", was not an RfC. I've reverted your edit. The thread is going nowhere and will be archived in normal course after inactivity. I'm also going to post a standard informational notice about American Politics articles in the next section. Happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO why are you tagging me with a discretionary sanction? The discussion is clearly over, "this is not an RFC" yes it is per WP:RFC "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content". Even if so, I could have just used the archived templates and it will be the same. And since I am not involved in that discussion, my closing is justified for a closure. I do not know what you intend but please just drop the stick (no offense). PyroFloe (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is self-explanatory and is issued to all editors on American Politcs pages. No, you should not close or archive ongoing discussions. They run their course in due time. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I resolve the AVI on me?

How do I solve the AVI on me?. Do i need to add sources when I make edits?. I can try to do that Kanto7 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring and disruptive editing, you have been reverting and reinstating edits without reliable sources and it seems like you are not stopping whatsoever. PyroFloe (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed of the need for sources in July 2020. CMD (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Sorry Kanto7 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of forumshopping

Hi PyroFloe, I've just seen that you created an AN/I report on Kanto7 a few days ago. Given this, I would refrain from threatening reporting them to more admins, as this would be looked down upon. The best course of action is to concisely add to the existing AN/I report if necessary, to keep everything in one place. CMD (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand, although I didn't really threaten to report him to other administrators, just Wtmitchell who started the discussion. I have reworded it to "arbitrate" rather than "report". Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see it as a threat, because I've been involved, but someone else looking into the situation might not see the whole context (especially given how poor the formatting of that discussion is). In reporting situations such as AN/I, it is often as important to be clear in your communications as it is to be 'right'. CMD (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I think I will just stop arguing with them for now as they are clearly not listening to our arguments. I am also reminding you, if you already didn't know, that he went and reported us to Wtmitchell's talk page. I wonder how that will turn out, PyroFloe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry (Kanto7 was warned for unconstructive edits)

Are you using a sock puppet to deface articles? You seem to have done this for the page French India. Kanto7 (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of sockpuppetry even though I have never done such a thing? Is that yours too just like Special:Contributions/49.2.59.31? It is the same IP range as the one that inserted that vandalism and I can tell by your actions that you are using many accounts to make it seem like you are undoing vandalism even though that IP range is yours. Checkusers can confirm that the IP is not from my range, do not accuse me of your own actions. I have had enough, you are clearly trying to bar me from editing from Wikipedia and your previous addition by another IP proves that your account Kanto7 and other IP ranges are connected to you, I am opening an SPI investigation as I see that you are trying to deface the integrity of me and my edits by making it seem like that IP is mine even though it is yours. PyroFloe (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Federated States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Federated States of America. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Federated States of America until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the word Kleptocrat from Ferdinand Marcos

You failed to prove your point at the NPOV noticeboard here, so stop removing the word kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not contentious, it is well-cited history. -Object404 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Object404:, How did I fail to prove it if no third party intervened to arbitrate in that discussion you linked? Shouldn't it be removed per MOS:PEACOCK and MOS:LABEL? I understand why you reverted the Ferdinand Marcos part, and I will not argue any further about that.

But why did you revert the Imelda Marcos pic? The "newer" image is low quality and has bad lighting. Please state your reason for reverting back to a bad infobox image. PyroFloe (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to prove your point. No third party agreed with your reasoning, hence status quo stays. No, the term is neither MOS:PEACOCK nor MOS:LABEL. Re-read those MOS guidelines. You highly misunderstand them. For Imelda, newer pic. -Object404 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The newer picture is very low quality, even old living people use old photos just like Fidel Ramos and Jimmy Carter I do not know what your point is on keeping the low quality "newer" pic . PyroFloe (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page now has new version of photo with good lighting. I don't see how you can say it is of low quality when it is high resolution (1,425 x 1,901). -Object404 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High resolution does not equal high quality for example look at her closed eyes, that is not a high quality photo. Let's reach a consensus between both of us on the photo, if we find a newer photo that is higher quality than the current one will you agree to change it? PyroFloe (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Image quality then get back to me on quality. Maybe what you mean is more glamorous? -Object404 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, find a newer photo. Even this is old. -Object404 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by glamorous? Image quality even states that it means "combining all of the visually significant attributes of an image", and that includes the minor details like the eyes. I'll try and dig deep the commons archives, because even if she's a convicted criminal, Wikipedia does not take sides and should be neutral so please don't make your political views affect your editing. Even the worst criminals have high quality photos like Adolf Hitler. PyroFloe (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kalininia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kalininia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Kalininia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany as a Puppet State

Please see Talk:List of World War II puppet states#East Germany as a Puppet State. I look forward to hearing your arguments for or against the removal of East Germany rather than hastily removing a large section with no discussion. Cnd474747 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord and preview cards

Hi, About your edit on Vichy France, I was wondering what you meant and if it only affects this article. The RedBurn (ϕ) 18:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]