User talk:Schazjmd: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

OMG you're probably American too! Now I am nationally disgraced as well as time/efficiency-shamed! When you are next in London please let me salvage my pride with (1) a visit to the wood in question and (2) beer (yes, just not that cold) or tea or whatever! Sheesh. I will have to fly the Union Jack at half-mast tonight – or I would if I had one! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK, (last time I forgot to notice your preferred style of address, fixed it this time) - I enjoyed the challenge of trying to figure out what happened ten years ago and 4,790 miles away. I only came across Coldfall Wood through "Random article" and could there be a wood's name more intriguing than that? Then the added mystery of an editor claiming an historical article was "outdated"! It was an hour of pure fun. Schazjmd (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, brilliant, thanks! It is a nice little local wood, with a bit of history (which you probably now know better than I do!) but not really a player on the stage of, er, global afforestation. But do please pop over – just the 4,790 miles, eh? – and enjoy it for yourself one day. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. officer -- our discussion is over, I understood that your section of Wiki is not willing to accept errors and improve, so there is no need to leave traces on my own page of useless discussions. And I see no morals in your interfering and menacing around. You claimed one day before that all voluntears are equal in rights -- no you corrected the errors (which was important) and the traces are gone, and nobody menaces you. Make up your mind: collaboration and "volunteer", or power abuse? Let us put an end to it, I see you were very helpfull in putting finally an end to the damaged state of the page, which lasts since 18 months. Thank you. And I see that you are reluctant to accept that this was NOT business as usual, and the marginal conditions are quite specific, in order to make an effort and see that things will not repeat. You made this clear, so there is no need for me for this evidence, since the other one has been removed. I wish you much fun your acitivity, and hopefully you will not be confronted too often with consequences of irresponsibility of colleagues. You know, this hiding of people who can take responsibility on Wiki, leaves one not many chances than yell -- to encounter one. Taking this objective fact serious, would be great for the community. PredaMi (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of mentioning you in my ANI report of Neutralhomer's off-wiki attacks. Hope you don't mind, but I felt it was important to include his attack on you. NedFausa (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on that discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited much lately on Wikipedia. However I'm curious why the edit I made on the May 25 page was reverted, as its own wiki page points out the birth date as this one and there are more sources on Google. Why not just add them instead of deleting the whole thing? The others aren't sourced.

My kindest regards for your work here, User:JoseRodil25.

Hi JoseRodil25, I explained my revert on your talk page. "I had to revert your edit to May 25. Per WP:DOYCITE, editors are going through the day-of-year articles to add sources to each entry, remove any that cannot be sourced, and ensuring that all new entries include an inline citation to a source. If you'd like to contribute to the effort by getting sources from the target articles and adding them to the day-of-year article (event, birth, death), your help is very welcome!" All edits that add new items to day-of-year articles without a source are being reverted. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir - Do you really think only the one person registered on Wikipedia sees and comments on entries and never discussing such entries with family / friends - ??? - Ridiculous !!! - My wife responded as she did as I was up for 12 hours doing TV / Radio at our station after Super Bowl where we thought a faster response was necessary - Appears not !!! - Your comment seems to be quite petty and totally unnecessary although so many of you Wiki ' editors ' appear to know absolutely nothing about people / topics within entries as stated - Seeing you are a retired senior airman am also somewhat disappointed as was a technical adviser for a number of years in the 1960s - 1970s in The Pentagon as an aide to three Commandants of the USMC - People were sharper then, by a long shot !!! - Thank you. COLONEL77

COLONEL77 (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]