User talk:Paulito
If you wish to improve the Brian Cowen article, please discuss your concerns about the article on the article's talk page. Facts cited about Cowen must reflect his real world activities and political performance, not just a Hello! magazine treatment. Your removal of references to the street protests outside the Dáil and the severe editorial criticism is to ignore reality of Cowen's performance. Why do you think that these items are inappropriate and can you explain why your edits are not in breach of NPOV Octanis (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"Ignoring the reality of Cowen's performance"? And you say I'M the one in breach of POV? I've already explained why colour quotes aren't appropriate here, and if you look you'll find I didn't remove the editorial quote you're referring to. I deleted a bald POV statement about how the u-turns "weakened Cowen's credibility" - YOU reversed this. There's already plenty of emphasis in the article on Cowen's perceived underperformance to date; the bits I deleted - including the quotes from unnamed sources within FF and the Greens which supposedly confirmed discontent within FF and Govt ranks - are unnecessary and dubious embellishments.
February 2009
[edit]
August 2009
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hot Chocolate (band), you will be blocked from editing.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Hot Chocolate (band). Ronhjones (Talk) 22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Editing Hot Chocolate (band)
[edit]I do think that you are trying to improve the Hot Chocolate (band) article, but your edits have removed all of the sources and the links to other articles, which can make it appear that you are deliberately removing content. Please start editing slowly and carefully, making sure at first to only change text without removing any of the formatting that makes articles work. Please contact me on my talk page with any questions. Alansohn (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"It has been suggested" is passive voice. You removed cited information, added phrases that are unnecessary and replaced clear language with awkward confusing language. Please use the talk page of the article and please be clear. --Moni3 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Although you fixed the passive voice phrase, the rest of the edits I made were overturned with no explanation, including removing information that is cited, replacing unclear language with awkward language, and inserting unnecessary and unencyclopedic phrasing. Can you explain your reasons, please? If I need to make my edits clear, I will be happy to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I was making all those other changes while (unbeknownst to me) you happened to be editing the entry at the same time. So when I saved mine, it automatically deleted yours. However, I don't know what "awkward" or "uncyclopaedic" language I'm supposed to have used - can you give me some examples? I think I've tidied up the article considerably and that its language, structure and general flow are now better than before. As for removing cited information, if I did that it's because I didn't consider the information relevant. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it adds any value to an article.
Paulito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulito (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's not your decision to make. It's the sources that decide what is relevant and what isn't. So read the sources. If you don't have the sources and are not willing to read them, then err on the side of caution by not removing cited information. The passage in question has a direct bearing on why Orbison was so popular in the early 1960s: more established acts that had defined rock and roll had begun to drop out of popular music for one reason or another. Orbison's style differed from theirs. He became enormously popular due to their absence and from his innovative style. That's not my opinion: it's Orbison's biographers' opinions. Orbison studied the Top Forty and worked at writing songs, but you removed that, again, for unstated reasons. You need to communicate what you are trying to accomplish and work with other editors.
- I obviously disagree with you that all your changes improve the article. As for what is awkward, with a view to training as a teacher is unintelligible. Phrases like "in any event" are unnecessary. The sentence reads fine without it. Does anyone really need an introduction to who Elvis Presley was at the time? This is a collaborative encyclopedia. I was just stupid enough to write this article because it was shit before. I don't own it, and I can see how some of the changes do not harm the material, but what I changed would not pass a good copy edit. So how about compromising some here? Use the article talk page to ask questions, and use edit summaries. --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2010 (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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Paulito. 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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Film "stars"
[edit]Per Template:Infobox film, "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Clarityfiend (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)