User talk:Tm
|
Disambiguation link notification
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Guimarães, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Painter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Syria
[edit]You reverted a photo on Syria without looking at the talk page where the policy is linked explaining the improper use of photo. I'm sure it was a mistake, please review your edit. Be advised that ALL Syria Civil War articles are under sanctions, only 1 revert allowed in 24 hrs. However, you can undo your own revert with no sanctions. Thank you for your attention. USchick (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Statues
[edit]Can you please stop reverting the changes? You have added the images, they have been removed with justification, the proper course is to discuss on the talk page, not re-revert. You have already broken the 3RR rule, and you know it. I am assuming AGF in not reporting anything, but for that to work, you have to stop reverting and start discussing. FWIW, there was a similar discussion a while back about images for Khosrau I. Generally, modern, ahistorical "reconstrutions" are not suitable, and you will not (or should not) find them in any serious article. The statues you have linked do not depict Caranus and Perdiccas, they are simply "generic ancient types in togas" with their names on the plinths underneath. It is simply incorrect to even imply that these statues have any likeness to them, unless of course there is a primary source like a coin or ancient statue—which I rather doubt, given the obscurity of these monarchs—in which case, again, the latter should be preferred. Constantine ✍ 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I did not added the images of this statues, it was added by someone else and it was a greek compatriot of yours that removed (and so vandalized it) this images. Also in the link you provided there was an historical and indigenous alternative, so this case is irrelevant as there is no alternative, so in lack of better alternative this images can be used, as there is several cases in other historical persons, that didnt had contemporary portraits or those were lost and in alternative modern images are used. It seems to me that this all fuse is because this statues are situated in Skopje and if it was in Greece there wouldnt be all this noise, but the dispute about the name Macedonia is totaly irrelevantTm (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- "It seems to me that this all fuse is because this statues are situated in Skopje and if it was in Greece there wouldnt be all this noise,". Ah, I see, so you simply re-add it to prove what, exactly? I am getting rather annoyed that you don't bother to read my message clearly, but presume you know "what this is about" and disregard a perfectly sound argument just to prove a WP:POINT. For the last time, these images are not alternatives, they are irrelevant. In Khosrau's case, where the modern image was based on a contemporary image and therefore actually looked somewhat like the historical person, the decision was for the original, not because of "alternatives", but because of authenticity, which is what an encyclopedia must strive for. In an image, just as a piece of text, a source is necessary for verification. Here there is none. If I added in the text that "Caranus was tall, had a long nose and a beard", it would be tagged and removed as groundless. This is exactly the case here: there is exactly zero relation between these statues and any historical source on the historical figures. If you are so determined to "one up" those pesky Greeks that you are willing to ignore the very simple fact that these statues come from the artist's imagination, rather than depicting the people they are supposed to be, then you should seriously question your motivation, not mine. FWIW, if you bother to check my editing history, you'll find me reverting changes like this several times, not just here. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- In case you havent noticed, the one that started disrupting Wikipedia was the user that removed the images and i´ve read perfectly well what you wrote and your argument dont hold water in this case, because as you admit there isnt an historical portray of this two macedon kings, as in the portrays of the ancient roman kings pages that, in the lack of contemporary images, use images of the 16th-century and so not contemporary of said kings, and so are not an product of authenticity. So i ask what is the difference to this modern statues, that are as much accurate as to macedonian kings as are this former images to ancient roman kings . Tm (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The difference is that I don't have ancient Roman kings on my watchlist; I do have ancient Macedonian ones. The difference is that there may be in some cases fictional depictions that have become the accepted "cultural" image of a certain person, which may be the case in Servius Tullius, I don't know. I certainly always try to replace "fantasy" images with something more authentic. The difference is that a bad practice in a hundred other pages does not justify a bad practice elsewhere. Also, the difference is that if I were not Greek, we wouldn't be having this issue, as your reaction up until now has been motivated more by assuming bad faith because of my nationality rather than bothering to answer my arguments. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
EC-47Q RoKAF
[edit]Is there some reason you reverted my crop of this photo? I don't think more grass and sky are needed to see the airplane.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:20, 10 October 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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Tm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding this funny, amateurishly drawn, and highly inaccurate "icon" or "minature" (or whatever it is) to this article. There are no sources that the actual order looked even closed to this depiction and moreover its quality its far below any standards. Thank you. Masur (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- [1] per above. It's just a funny cartoon, drawn by someone, that has nothing to do with the order itself. Masur (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Tm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Tm. 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)
Next time, please report edit warriors to WP:AN3 and do not get involved yourself. You nearly got a block on your account for that incident. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: So i´ve reverted the sistematic addiction of unfree files and i was the one that could be blocked??? Good to now, as next time i will do nothing and the pages will have no image. Tm (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was just a friendly reminder not to get caught up in an edit war, no matter how right you think you are. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:44, 12 January 2019 (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 |
Darey
[edit]Permission has been granted by Kelechi Amadi-Obi and OTRS tag placed on photos, you really need to please realise that there's no foul play and complete legal authority has been given to me to edit Darey's page and use his photos. Temi2004 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Another sincere appeal here. No more changes being made, neutrality now being applied. Temi2004 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Happy New Year, Tm!
[edit]
Tm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
- @The Eloquent Peasant: Hope you also have a happy new year or, if you already are in 2021, a continuation a happy new year. Cheers. Tm (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
Military Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your contribution to the list of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Undiscussed page move
[edit]Hi Tm, I was wondering why you changed the Arquinho Factory to Fábrica do Arquinho without any proper discussion. V.B.Speranza (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- O mesmo poderia ser dito das suas movimentações sem qualquer fonte de tradução que suporte as suas movimentações. Tm (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I was expecting a more mature response. It's important to note that justifying one's actions solely based on someone else's behavior lacks depth and does not contribute to a thoughtful exchange of ideas nor it answers my question. V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
October 2024 Edit Summaries
[edit]Hello Tm. I'm Quaerens-veritatem. Thank you for your edits. When I saw the page history showing your edits, I didn't see edit summaries except only wikitext tags. I know you use the 2017 wikitext editor, you're an experienced editor, and I don't mean to be condescending or ignorant of WP:DTR but, per WP:TR, in addition to the wikitext editor tag, I encourage you to provide a summary of every edit you make. Of course, the summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history and the summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). In case you were unaware, the edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit and a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
As you likely know, if the edit is minor, the "This is a minor edit" box can be checked, and a good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits.
Many who are ignorant of the Wikipedia policy on edit summaries fail to add them. Some ignore this basic brief task; however, failure seems inconsiderate specially since summaries are so easy to add. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
Thank you for your attention and in advance for your consideration.
Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)