User talk:Brachney

Russian position in the fullest extent is covered in article Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, whith plenty of citations of multiple Russian politicians. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As for Bahrouti, wikipedia is not a vehicle to link articles which ask for political donations. In addition, it is Bahrouti's word that prominent people support him. Please provide references where these people speak for themselves. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Altenmann,

Thank for the curt, condescending, reply!

Poor excuse indeed, and how in heaven's name can you explain your involvement in suppressing balance in two articles simultaneously? You should at least have had the decency to suppress objectivity one article at a time!

Your first point is ludicrous. Each article is a self-contained entity! A reader of your biased article will get the impression that the Russians have no excuse for their conduct, no reason at all. He is not going to read that other article you mentioned, most likely. Each article MUST be objective, without reference to any other! And why cite ONLY American media? Is that your idea of objectivity? Why not give us, just for the sake of appearances, a comment from Russia Insider for instance? Note that you don't need to know Russian nowadays to get their viewpoint. They express it well in many English-language tabloids.

About Barghouti (not Bahrouti, my friend). This is silly. This is clearly an attempt to suppress reality. You don't believe these public intellectuals and Nobel Prize winners said this? Check it out. I shall gladly look it up, but that way it will be one person at a time and will take half the article to document this. This is a matter of public record, my friend, and you can check the records of your employer to verify these claims! This is a political manifesto by one side of a conflict, not an ad. I'm not sure myself who is right in this case. But I'm sure that objectivity is our collective goal, not presenting one side and calling this presentation reality!

OK, let's compromise. If I give you these people in their own words (which you and I and your employer know that I can), would you then delete my next revision, yes or no? If you say NO, if your promise that you and your colleagues will leave it alone, then we can resolve the problem with this second article, hopefully.

My dear Altenmann, you should be ashamed of yourself, writing such obviously biased articles. It's perfectly OK to be pro-Israeli, and I actually personally sympathize with this view. But when trying to educate people, one should let go of one's emotions, and one should present a balanced view, assuming that all people, all nationalities, all religions, are equal, and that all should have a voice!

This is for me involves a larger question: Is Wikipedia a truth-seeking outfit? If not, I' still glad for this dialog, for this exchange taught me something new and worth recounting elsewhere.

So, we'll wait and see. You of course cannot change your outlook, even if you wanted to. So it's up to the administrators to resolve this.

• "You don't believe these public intellectuals and Nobel Prize winners said this? " - I don't have to. Show us their own words, not a hearsay by the interested side. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Check it out." - In wikipedia, it is your task to substantiate the text you added. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• "curt, condescending, reply" - Wikipedia is not a discussion board. You are new here, please be more humble and learn how to operate here. Wikipedia has rules to follow. In particular, article content must be discussed in article talk pages, where more people can join discussion, not only me. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Russians have no excuse for their conduct" - the "excuse" is described. Political speeches are not excuses. In wikipeida isnformation is taken from independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant cognition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravens. 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) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ernest Hemingway 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. Bahooka (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know, a lot of article titles are case-sensitive, and in most situations, only the first letter of the first word of a multi-word article is capitalized.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Apokrylataros. I'll try again with this in mind.--Brachney

Stop being a dick as you were with this edit summary. Discussions about content (and content disputes) are to be held on the article talk pages... NOT on my talk page and definitely NOT on my user page. Go to Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, then make your argument in those places. -Location (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

For information to all editing in this topic area:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

regards, dave souza, talk 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Song lyrics are copyright, and we're not allowed to include them here. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your addition to Katyusha (song) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Song lyrics are copyright, and we're not allowed to add them to our articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Merton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berrigan Brothers (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) 09:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pankration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diagoras (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) 14:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! No, it's not an error. Diagoras is the father of Dorieus, and Dorieus is mentioned in the Diagoras entry.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at James Fenimore Cooper, 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. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Michael Cremo, you may be blocked from editing. You'd need reliable sources (plural) to back that, you can't use quotes from an author to make a point about their work. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)