User talk:Rupert loup: Difference between revisions
Rupert loup (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
::I don't have idea of what are you talking about. Stop warring and discuss the issue in the talk page. [[User:Rupert loup|Rupert Loup]] ([[User talk:Rupert loup#top|talk]]) 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
::I don't have idea of what are you talking about. Stop warring and discuss the issue in the talk page. [[User:Rupert loup|Rupert Loup]] ([[User talk:Rupert loup#top|talk]]) 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::That is rich coming from you. You are the one edit-warring to add a spurious tag while providing no rationale at all, and refusing to discuss. Stop edit warring, and bring up any issues on the talk page instead. You are also using a false edit summary by claiming that you have provided such a rationale when you haven't. --[[User:Tataral|Tataral]] ([[User talk:Tataral|talk]]) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
:::That is rich coming from you. You are the one edit-warring to add a spurious tag while providing no rationale at all, and refusing to discuss. Stop edit warring, and bring up any issues on the talk page instead. You are also using a false edit summary by claiming that you have provided such a rationale when you haven't. --[[User:Tataral|Tataral]] ([[User talk:Tataral|talk]]) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::I literally don't have idea what are you talking about. Stop writting in my talk page. [[User:Rupert loup|Rupert Loup]] ([[User talk:Rupert loup#top|talk]]) 03:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:48, 14 June 2020
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
In recognition of the hard work and integrity with which you've tackled articles. Both you and your work are truly appreciated. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For the amount of work and integrity you've put into this project. Your work is greatly appreciated and hopefully the retirement is temporary. London Hall (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks!
Wow, that was a quick fix to the wikiquote page for Coraline Ada Ehmke! Thanks!--Jorm (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for fixes at Islamic views on sin
Trying to figure out if I could remove bogus added sections by an editor faking cite book entries I came across your deletions of part of that trash. You were more than correct. Thank you. Shenme (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Christian (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) 18:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Henlee Hulix Barnette
Hiya, did you mean to set an importance level with your edit to Henlee Hulix Barnette's talk page? The edit was missing braces, which I've added to fix the page formatting, but you also added a parameter about importance without setting a value, so I just wondered if that was intentional. All the best, › Mortee talk 01:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nergal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Higher Education in the Arab World links from Arab world
Hello, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia in the past weeks, I noticed that you deleted Higher Education in the Arab World links from the article Arab world, I reverted your edit as they were unexplained removal of viable and related page link, maybe I missed something? can you shed some light on this? Regards, UA3 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- UA3: ??? You were who deleted the link. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think I better get my eyes checked, sorry for the mess, Regards. UA3 (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Islam and Violence
hello I saw you made changes at that page. well there is also talk page at that page and also at Pacifism in Islam, some users like to change content without consenus or adding not relevant things etc. I dont know if this is legal but you can join to discussion about and to kind of keep wikipedia about facts not personal preferences or pov views. I also agree with changes what you made at Islam and Violence but as I said some users like to change things. There should be closer attention to that content. 178.221.118.83 (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect that 178.221.118.83 is yet another sockpuppet of banned User:MilanVuko1. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MilanVuko1/Archive for the evidence. 178.221.118.83 is engaging in the same pattern of disruptive editing as the other IPs mentioned there, and is also based in the same location (Serbia). Maestro2016 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Libation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Offering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
Your recent editing history at Plimpton 322 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are well over 3RR. Leave it alone Meters (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Your posts
If you wish to report an incident, you should report it to WP:ANI. I suppose you can report it to WP:AN, but you should not report it to the Talk pages of either noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bbb23, ok sorry for thinking that you were trying to censor me. Since this is the second time that an Admin revert my edits without explanation in the summary or in a talk page so I was oversuspicious. Rupert Loup (talk)
- I don't think it would be a good idea for you to take this to any notice board. It's on the article's talk page, there is no consensus for your change, and WP:RETAIN applies. Meters (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clay tablet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babylonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Psalm 4
What you added to Psalm 4 is already mentioned in the linked article Psalms. We don't have to repeat it in a separate section in every psalm. If you want to repeat it somehow, I suggest you write a footnote. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm ok wiht your suggestion. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"European colonial era" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect European colonial era. Since you had some involvement with the European colonial era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alerts for post-1932 American politics, living and recently deceased people, and gender issues
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-1932 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.
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 09:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller: Can you take a look to this discussion? It seems that people there are not trying to remain civil. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Damifino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Uh_... --Brogo13 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove categories from redirects tagged with {{R with possibilities}}
"Deprecated sources" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Deprecated sources. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 31#Deprecated sources until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Izno (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anti-fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Your edit summary doesn't seem an accurate reason for blanking this, her essay wasn't self-published and we don't normally call a book by an academic a primary source. I see it was reinstated. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The content are primary opinions and don't treat the negative material as an organic whole. Generally I wouldn't delete it, but given the current events a section with no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria with only primary opinions is a troll magnet. Also some of the sources are not in English and make it difficult to verify. WP:NOENG. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here it is, please point out what is WP:PRIMARY. WP:ENG isn't relevant when you have clearly reliable sources that are appropriate to the subject, although of course replacing them with equal quality English sources would have been fine.
- Political scientist Antonia Grunenberg describes "anti-fascism" as a "strange term, that expresses opposition to something, but no political concept", and points out that while all democrats are against fascism, not everyone who is against fascism is a democrat; in this sense Grunenberg argues that the term obscures the difference between democrats and non-democrats.[1] Tim Peters notes that the term is one of the most controversial terms in political discourse.[2] Norman Davies notes that "anti-fascism" originated as an ideological construct of Soviet propaganda: "'anti-fascism' did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance. It showed its adherents what to oppose, not what to believe in. It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism."[3] Michael Richter highlights the ideological use of the term in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, in which the term fascism was applied to opponents of Communism regardless of any connection to historical fascism, and where the term anti-fascism served to legitimize communist rule.[4]
- I stopped to cook and eat. Tagbombing? Really? That already looks disruptive, I hope you aren't planning to delete all that material if you don't get a quick response. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't find a similar tag to add in the lead.
There is a general tag for that?I think that I found a general tag. Also about the tags, I think that one tag about the lack of sourcing in the lead is enough. - What source Grunenberg cites there when she made that claim? Tim Peters is ok, although that content alone is not really usefull. Norman Davies doesn't cite any source. All the criticism in that section is about the use of the term more than the "opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals" per se. I restored some of the content to reflect that. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- We don't say that reliable sources need to cite sources. I'm glad you found a general tag. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that for this particular controversial topic are needed. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- We don't say that reliable sources need to cite sources. I'm glad you found a general tag. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't find a similar tag to add in the lead.
- I stopped to cook and eat. Tagbombing? Really? That already looks disruptive, I hope you aren't planning to delete all that material if you don't get a quick response. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Grunenberg, Antonia (1993). Antifaschismus – ein deutscher Mythos. Freiburg: Rowohlt. p. 9. ISBN 978-3499131790.
- ^ Peters, Tim (2007). Der Antifaschismus der PDS aus antiextremistischer Sicht [The antifascism of the PDS from an anti-extremist perspective]. Springer. pp. 33–37 and p. 186. ISBN 9783531901268.
- ^ Davies, Norman (2008). Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory. Pan Macmillan. p. 54. ISBN 9780330472296.
- ^ Richter, Michael (2006). "Die doppelte Diktatur: Erfahrungen mit Diktatur in der DDR und Auswirkungen auf das Verhältnis zur Diktatur heute". In Besier, Gerhard; Stoklosa, Katarzyna (eds.). Lasten diktatorischer Vergangenheit – Herausforderungen demokratischer Gegenwart. LIT Verlag. pp. 195–208. ISBN 9783825887896.
Doug Weller talk 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Post-World War II anti-fascism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not add irrelevant maintenance tags, as you did on Post-World War II anti-fascism. The tag was clearly spurious and lacked any rationale on the talk page, and has been removed. Tataral (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not make false statements in edit summaries. You have started no discussion on the talk page, and there is no rationale there by yourself or any others for your spurious and disruptive tag. Stop edit warring and bring up on any issues on the talk page instead. --Tataral (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have idea of what are you talking about. Stop warring and discuss the issue in the talk page. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is rich coming from you. You are the one edit-warring to add a spurious tag while providing no rationale at all, and refusing to discuss. Stop edit warring, and bring up any issues on the talk page instead. You are also using a false edit summary by claiming that you have provided such a rationale when you haven't. --Tataral (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I literally don't have idea what are you talking about. Stop writting in my talk page. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is rich coming from you. You are the one edit-warring to add a spurious tag while providing no rationale at all, and refusing to discuss. Stop edit warring, and bring up any issues on the talk page instead. You are also using a false edit summary by claiming that you have provided such a rationale when you haven't. --Tataral (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have idea of what are you talking about. Stop warring and discuss the issue in the talk page. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)