User talk:Communist-USSR
I used the references about Adamsite usage in Caracas since there were no foreign media present. This is the best information available and due to the intimidation on media in Venezuela this may be the best reference we may get. I used the same reference sources before and you still have not deleted those so it seems you have a particular point of view you are trying to place upon other. I respect your opinion, but this information cannot be withheld especially with the RECORDED PROOF in the references if you care to take a look.
--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a reliable source, I can also find sources that say all protesters are fascist. The BBC, CNN, GLOBO, NTN 24 etc are free to report this. I don't know you used the same source, but I removed this because it's highly questionable.--Communist-USSR (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The sources used seemed biased to you so you deleted them. It is clearly stated that BIASED INFORMATION MAY BE SUBMITTED if it is from a RELIABLE SOURCE i.e. DOLAR TODAY which was used
You sent me the link. Read it yourself. Thank you! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't deleted the sources because they seemed biased but because the sources are not reliable and I can't find any on this on for example CNN, AJ, GLOBO etc. DOLAR TODAY is not a reliable source...--Communist-USSR (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It's nothing against you, I just have family effected by the violence and they have evidence that this is happening too. I found more sources that are reliable too it's just hard top find major names like CNN since many groups in the media are intimidated.
Sorry for any misunderstandings, --Zfigueroa (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lapatilla is also not a reliable source. If it was true, major news sites had already report it. There is no prove of imitation of Reuters, CNN, BBC, GLOBO etc. Please don't add it again before providing a reliable source, that is a rule of wikipedia.--Communist-USSR (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have words from Ricardo Hausmann, a director at Harvard stating the use of the gas. I will submit it once again. --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know that the gas has been used, but we need a reliable source to be able to add such information. Remember that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. If something isn't verifiable, doesn't mean it's nor true, it only means that until we can verify it, it doesn't belong here, since it falls under the other pillar, no original research. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 18:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We both have our warning so let's stop reverting things. I'm sure we both don't want to be blocked so let's just put what we can prove and trim what we need to do.
Thanks for your work, --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Gotta say, I'm starting to get frustrated with the clear bias toward the anti-government protestors going on in this article. If a source disagrees with the narrative of certain editors they declare it non-reliable but they're inserting any old blog effectively unvetted. Thanks for toughing this out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar! And thanks to you too.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Move reverted.
[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Toine Manders has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Please note that per WP:TWODABS, it is not necessary to create a disambiguation page where there are only two meanings of a term, and one can be considered primary over the other. In such cases, disambiguation can be accomplished with a hatnote. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Clarification
[edit]Your Toine Manders entry should have a disambiguation from the well-known Dutch politician of the same name that is an elected member of the European Parliament representing The Netherlands.
I think it is misleading, in English, to refer to this Toine Manders as a "lawyer". English use of the term "lawyer" almost always means an attorney qualified to represent clients in court. I don't think this person has this qualification, and perhaps not even a university degree in law. I believe that the Dutch word "jurist" can refer to a person who simply has a bachelors degree in law as well as a 'bar' qualified attorney, so confusion is understandable but should be avoided in this entry.
The services of HJC to potential conscripts, and after 1996 for company formation, were done in the context of what is usually referred to as 'paralegal' in most US states and certainly in the UK, so I have edited the page to translate the company name to a closer English understanding of the Dutch terms, including the Dutch word "College" which this is certainly not in the common English use of the word (an educational entity).
JimTurney (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at 2014 Venezuelan protests 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. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For toughing it out in a rough debate over an ongoing event. Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
Talk page blanking
[edit]Editors are free to blank or archive their own talk page if they wish. An editor deleting a warning is actually slightly useful, as it shows that they have read it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
[edit]
|
Cheers comrade/tovarisch! SmokeyTheCat 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 10:13, Sunday, December 29, 2024 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
A page you started (Toine Manders (politician, born 1969)) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Toine Manders (politician, born 1969), Communist-USSR!
Wikipedia editor NHCLS just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello. Could you please add some more information and sources for the Manders page? The article is currently pretty incomplete. Thanks!
To reply, leave a comment on NHCLS's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for relentlessly fighting bias and falsehood. Zozs (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)