User talk:Cynko

Hello, Cynko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to James Shields (baseball). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cynko. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Cynko. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball. We are dedicated to improving all articles relating to baseball. If you're interested in participating, please consider adding your name to our participant list and join our active discussions on how to improve coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, when you create an article like Tomasz Tymosiak by basing it on an existing article, please remember to fix the DEFAULTSORT. Thanks. PamD 11:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of its content is user-generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles as you did with Paweł Socha and Damian Falisiewicz. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Damian Falisiewicz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page II liga. 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) 10:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cynko. 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)[reply]

MLB.com is unreliable on this. They have for some reason gone back to their spring training 2016 numbers. The correct numbers can be found on the official Indians roster at indianspressbox.com

Hi Cynko! I noticed that you left this IP user an only warning on their talk page here. It looks to be due to the edit the IP made here, which you then reverted. Why did you leave an only warning notice on the IP's talk page due to this edit? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cynko. 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)[reply]

Did you not even read my lengthy edit summaries. My edits are explained corrections. Not vandalism. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:C4 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I can't see your comment on my talk page (except in the pages history) so i'll respond here. As mentioned in my edit summaries:

Despite being referenced, Lost River State Park and Moncove Lake State Park are not listed in the IUCN database so I removed the errors from the pages.

Hi Cynko. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for reverting the edit. Perhaps the IP address should get blocked for vandalism?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism on the highly visible Stoke City F.C. page (i.e. the current event). Iggy (Swan) 14:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Cynko! I am leaving you this message to seek your help regarding two other Ang Probinsyano pages. The first being the Ang Probinsyano main page and the other, the List of Ang Probinsyano guest stars page. In my one year as a contributor on Wikipedia, most of my edits have been adding contents and citations to such pages as well as the various pages devoted to the show. However, I've always ran into a problem with an anonymous user that frequently removed content, despite the content having a citation attached to it, and actually removing the citation as well. I've sought the help of Babymissfortune on the matter, as the user has one too many times reverted the edits of this anonymous user. However, I receieved neither a response from Babymissfortune nor was there an investigation conducted on the same. I've also listed the IP addresses used by the anonumous user. The fact that the edits made by the anonmyous user is centered on the removal of content, wikilinks and references without leaving a summary or explanation of why which even if the user did leave an explanation would still be not enough to justify his actions considering he removes content that has a verifiable source, leads me to believe that the said anonymous user is one person using multiple IP addresses. On top of the unity of actions between the various anonymous contributors, the fact that the IP addresses share a common combination - 130.105.10 - leads us to no other conclusion than that of these IP addresses belonging to one and only person.

I have toiled long and hard to ensure the veracity of the contents in the aforementioned pages. In fact, the List of Ang Probinsyano guest stars page was once listed as a listcruft for lack of references. I scoured the Internet to find references to support the content listed therein and time and time again, the anonymous user has reverted my edits by removing the content, wikilink and references that I have added without providing any explanation.

I have tried talking to the anonymous user by leaving a message on his talk page, and one on both the affected pages, but I got no response and the anonymous user still carried on removing content and references attached to the content. Having laid all of that, I implore you to act on the matter and get an explanation from the anonymous user. In the alternative, should the anonymous user persist in the inexplicable and unnecessary removal of content and citations, that a ban for his various IP addresses be made so that he could not disrupt the affected pages anymore. Lest it be forgotten that one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that its articles are written from a neutral point of view, which calls for every article to be verifiable. By the anonymous user's removal of the citations, the verifiability of the entries on the page is negated.

Here is a list of said anonymous user’s IP addresses that proves that a ban may be in order.

130.105.10.206 130.105.10.46 130.105.10.170 130.105.10.172 130.105.10.5 130.105.10.231 130.105.10.236 130.105.10.60 130.105.10.89 130.105.10.106 130.105.10.29 130.105.10.3 130.105.10.99 130.105.10.194 130.105.10.77 130.105.10.248 130.105.10.48 130.105.10.146 130.105.10.73 124.105.17.141

Gardo Versace (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Thank you so much for your assistance Cynko! Greatly appreciate it. Gardo Versace (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review this please Special:Diff/840054925? KingAndGod 14:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for a lot of time, thanks for the part in reverting. I have requested page protection. Iggy (Swan) 22:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removal of block notices is covered under WP:BLANKING. MaryPoppinCaps Only removal of unblock requests, that I can see. Might be construed as EW by the remover. Be careful. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont interfere in fields you have now knowledge about. See German WP. And Lisa Ninz: L'archivio personale di Giuseppe Gerola presso la Fondazione Biblioteca San Bernardino di Trento 1890–1938 (con documenti dal XVIII secolo e seguiti al 1950). Inventario Analitico. Trient 2009 http://www.fondazionebibliotecasanbernardino.it/index.php/it/strumenti-e-testi/category/2-archivi-personali?download=5:inventario-archivio-giuseppe-gerola source with further bibliography. Thank you --Ourgmich (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--Ourgmich (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ourgmich: The next time, would you please add reliable source to your edit to prevent misunderstanding? Thank you. Cynko (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Wikipedian of the Month
	Reverting vandalism on some of my watchlist pages in May. Iggy (Swan) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy the Swan: Thanks a lot :-) Cynko (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day Cynko! Earlier I wanted to leave a message for you regarding the said user as his vandalism has gone on for far too long. I can't thank you enough for reporting him and recommending his being blocked. Than k you so much Cynko! I can now rest easy that I would not have to deal with the anonymous user's incessant and inexplicable removal of content, wikilinks and references.

Thank you and my warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cynko!

I'm writing to you in regards to the "Yussuf Yurary Poulsen" page.

The reason that I'm adding his middle name to his wikipedia page is because he uses his middle name "Yurary" when he plays on the Danish national team.

Your response to me detailing his full name not being constructive is false. It is his legal middle name and it is the name he goes by in the Danish national team, so it should only be fair that it is included in his wikipedia page.

If you want to discuss the issue, then I'm all for it. To me, it seems pretty obvious that it should be included in the title and the text of his pages, as it has been his own wish to use his middle name as a tribute to his father.^[1]

It can be argued that his full name doesn't need to be used every time he is referenced, but the title of the pages should include his middle name as e.g. Jon Dahl Tomasson^[2], Wessam Abou Ali^[3], Bernhard Vilhelm Andersen^[4] etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanishPersianPerception (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260::/32
• Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260::/48
• Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:f810::/64
• Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93 (this is a different IP who is called out in the block message of the /64}

(It turns out 99.23.39.93 was blocked for a year by User:Widr on 24 March 2018).

Regarding this idea of a /32 block of a particular IPv6 range. This is not out of the question, but the range has so much activity you would need to show it is either just one person (who consistently vandalizes at least part of the time) or covers more than one person who are mostly not helping the encyclopedia. Probably it takes a lot of study to figure that out. It might be simpler to consider a /48 rather than a /32. If you have the patience to study more of these contributions, let me know what your investigation finds and I'll take a look. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Ok. I will keep an eye on this IP range. If I find something more, I will let you know. Thank you for taking care of this. I think we can close my report at WP:ANI. Cynko (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! I see that you reverted my contribution on the article, but i did a research corresponding on the last statement in the American period section, but i question the legitimacy of the supposed sino Japanese war movie titled "dugo sa kapirasong lupa" which is i find doubious. I check the background of the early movies in the Philippines from 20's and 30's (silent to early talkies) but there are no reference about this supposed title in short a hoax it might misleading. The only legit for this title (dugo sa kapirasong lupa) with the existing film was the one made during the 70's which is set in Philippine revolution (not in sino - Japanese war) so in short that part was dubious you may review about the Philippine cinema for what i said, thank you! (Enola gay0 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Enola gay0: I reverted your edit, because it wasn't gramatically corrected. What did you mean by leaving the sentence with the phrase "sentiments al"? I removed whole unsourced content. Could you check if everything is okay now? Cynko (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry for my grammar , i have to discuss this issue talk page along with references, but for now i have to insert a tag on that particular line. thank you! (Enola gay0 (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Premier League clubs is defined as "This category is for all teams, past and present, that have ever played in the Premier League." Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: I didn't notice this annotation. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Cynko (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. --Jameboy (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Cynko" -- sorry but I don't know how else to contact you other than to write here. You recently messaged me (my IP on Wiki) accusing me of "vandalizing" a Wiki page for a person I've never even heard of, much less visited the page of, much less edited the page of. Please refrain from making accusations unless you are actually certain of the validity of your accusation and certain that you are addressing it to the correct person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.193.180 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very certain. Please check your IP conributions first [1]. I've never heard of this person too, but it's not a reason to change her birth date for fun. Are you sharing this IP address with someone else? Cynko (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Cherie Gil. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I've just blocked this user for 3RR (the edits from the other party might be disruptive and communication from both sides has been poor, but I can't see blatant and obvious vandalism or BLP violations) and they appear to have been repeatedly using rollback for what could be good-faith edits (a key reason I blocked instead of just giving them a telling off). Would you object if I removed this privilege? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: No need to ask; if you feel it appropriate, go ahead. That being said — having only briefly scanned this — I'm not sure removal is immediately warranted. My impression is that Cynko was good-faith reverting unsourced changes to a BLP. I'm not sure the IP edits fit your definition of plain and simple vandalism, but it's not clear to me that Cynko wasn't acting to try and prevent the article from being harmed. If it were me, I'd discuss the circumstances of block a bit first before removing rollback, but YMMV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Please check my contributions first, then use your block button. Ip user changed birth date, to wrong date. Is this a good faith edit to you? I have reverted vandalisms on enwiki for 3 months but after this I realized it's a waste of time. Cynko (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amory - I was more asking for a second opinion on the block than anything else. Since this appears to be a one-off, I'm not inclined to remove it; however I have seen rollback removed for "first time offences" in the past, so I wondered if doing it here would be consistent with past precedent.

Cynko, just for the record I blocked the IP for the same length - admins can't take sides and if neither side shows evidence of backing down, you have to block both in the interests of fairness (or you can full-protect the page, but since the article is in poor shape and I want other people to improve it in the short term, I don't think protection is the answer here). And as the old saying goes, "blocks are not punishment, but preventative" - I wanted you to stop hitting "rollback" repeatedly on the article and discuss the issues, and had no confidence you would do so off your own back.

You say "IP user changed birth date, to wrong date"? As I look at it now, the current date of birth is unsourced. How do I know it's the "wrong date" (without wishing to sound at all sexist, you can't have not seen a woman lie about her age, and I have certainly seen complaints on Twitter in particular from celebs who grumble about their DOB being wrong on WP)? They changed a bunch of other stuff as well, without supplying sources. The biographies of living persons policy says that adding unsourced or poorly sourced libellous or controversial content can warrant a block, but I can't in good conscience see anything that meets the "libellous" or "controversial" part. I have about 150 articles (where I made a substantial contribution to the content) on my watchlist, and these sort of edits turn up all the time, and very few are what I would describe as immediately blockable vandalism. If I had to pick an essay to use in this scenario to describe the IP's behaviour, it would be WP:COMPETENCE; but that's not a policy you can sanction on.

The problem is that fundamentally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that attracts a fairly broad set of skills and specialists. Some of us write the content, some of us research sources, some fix typos, some fix formatting and make the articles aesthetically pleasing, some find appropriate images, and some keep an eye on vandalism and hijinks. All of these groups need to work together, and if you take the myopic view of reverting vandalism without considering anything else, you do run the risk of falling into these elephant traps.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 saw this on my watchlist (no clue why it is there?) My inclination would be to lift the block under a promise of being careful next time, which is my standard for first time edit warring blocks. I usually ad 0RR as an option, but since DOB was involved here, and unsourced DOB is a question that not even oversighters can agree on (I've been told that it should be oversighted under virtually all circumstances if unsourced, told only oversighted for minors, told that it only applies 15 and under, and then told only oversighted if it was a minor who was also an A7. Each by a different OS'r), I'm sympathetic to the idea that Cynko was under the impression this was covered by the BLP policy since the people who are supposed to be the experts on what WP:DOB means can't come to an agreement as to what it means. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni I am generally amenable to unblocking if the editor I blocked understands why, or if any third-party editor (not even admin) decides the block was poor and / or against policy. Changing a sourced DOB to an unsourced one is clearly against BLP; however changing one unsourced DOB to another, where the two dates are about five weeks apart, and neither seems particularly beyond the bounds of credibility, is less cut and dried. Obviously the ideal solution is to find a source and add it, but I'm struggling to find anything about Cherie Gil that isn't tabloidesque gossip. In any case, the article is in poor shape. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I certainly get your point-of-view here (and for the record, I'm actually grateful you've been patrolling AIV of late and I think edit warring blocks there for bad reverts of non-vandals is a good thing.) My initial response was "Don't edit war with an IP, good block" but the DOB question is fuzzy. It wasn't 3RR exempt in my view because, like you said, both are unsourced, but I can get why someone would think otherwise. I think Cynko just saying they would be more careful next time with the reverts would be good for an unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So, Cynko, here's the deal - if you see problematic unsourced content on a BLP again, go to WP:BLPN as a first instance, and unless you are very sure its important to revert the edits immediately (eg: "'x' held up a liquor store / killed a 9 year old in a DUI accident / was arrested for selling cocaine" without sources), take your finger off the rollback button and let others deal with it. If you reply to this saying you understand and resolve go a bit easier on BLPs, I will unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source, I was based on [2]. It has even its own page on enwiki. I won't go to WP:BPLN, because I don't care, if this person (Cherie Gil), I've never heard of, was born in 1963 or 1767. I do care about credibility of Wikipedia. I noticed on recent changes IP user's suspicious edits, especially birth date changes, and I moved in. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2010, and I got my sysop right on plwiki over 5 years ago. I've never been involved in edit warrings. I was fighting with vandals here on enwiki, and I finally got reward - block for 24 hours :-). And now: @Ritchie333: remove my rollback rights as soon as possible, just Twinkle will be fine. I will never report IP user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, because I don't want to be blocked anymore :-) You don't have to unblock me right now. I will focus on my admin work on plwiki Cynko (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for your support. Best regards. Cynko (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

famousbirthdays.com is a self-published source, so we can't use that for BLPs. It doesn't explain you reverting the other content, or for your undiscussed revert of Famela13 (talk · contribs). I'm utterly amazed you've been an admin on the Polish Wikipedia for five years and didn't know that reverting eight times on an article with no discussion whatsoever on a far from clear-cut case was likely to get you blocked? Anyway, since I'm convinced you won't be editing the article anymore, I will unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are reliable on plwiki, but not on enwiki e.g. transfermarkt.de. Famousbirthdays.com is self-published source, has its own page on enwiki, and is not reliable :-) I am surprised that this birth date is still in the article. Thank you for unblocking, but after all I'm not going to edit enwiki for some time. Cynko (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it can be treated as a reliable source. For instance, IMDB is generally considered unsuitable as a definitive source, particularly for BLPs. And at the risk of going from the sublime to the ridiculous, we have an article on the Sunday Sport (whose most famous headline, as seen in the article, was "World War II Bomber Found On Moon") - I'd love to see somebody argue the case for it being reliable on WP:RSN, just for entertainment purposes. I'd be quite interested to know what the Polish Wikipedia make of the latter example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cynko. There is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Cynko! It's been a while. The one month suspension of the anonymous user has just lapsed and if you would look at the Ang Probinsyano and List of Ang Probinsyano guest stars pages, the anonymous user wasted no time in removing references again. It appears this anonymous user has not learned its lesson. I think a total ban of his IP Address is in order.

Warmest Regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardo Versace: I'd love to help you, but I resigned from my rollback rights, and I fight with vandals only on my native Wikipedia. I am less active here, but you can report this IP range, on your own :-) If he vandalizes after recent release of block, there will be no problem to block him again.... I guess. Best regards :-) Cynko (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cynko: It's okay Cynko! I know I can always count on you. This tip on how to report the anonymous user is already a big help. Thanks :)

Warmest regards.

I changed his info because it’s absolutely incorrect why don’t you put the correct info Johnny Cueto jr is MY SON not Jenny !! Why don’t you check out Johnny Cueto jr Facebook or Instagram if you want proof or how about birth certificate! Or check out my Facebook or Instagram or why don’t you ask Johnny Cueto himself That’s not Jenny’s kid so get your facts straight! And take it down now or I’ll seek legal action ! ASAP Kristen LeFaivre (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware of how Twitter works... Yes, anyone can create a count but everyone is named Adam Levine, happens to Behati Prinsloo's husband and happens to have his account verified because he's the real one. I don't know, I guess her husband MUST KNOW her real birth date.

TheNamelessDoll TheNamelessDoll (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• account
• not everyone TheNamelessDoll (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Witam. Dzięki że zająłeś się Motorem tak jak owmówiono. Nie wiem na ile zamierzasz tutaj działać (z porównaniu z plwiki) ale z Polskich edytorów sportu to chyba jeśteśmy jedyni w tej chwili (reszta to tzw. "usuwacze" i nic dobrego nie wnoszą, poza tym blokują/banują/ostrzegają bez żadnego pohamowania i powodu bez nawet próby dyskusji co mi się bardzo nie podoba).

Mam niektóre propozycje nie wiem co o nich sądzisz:

1. Motor. Motor Lublin (speedway) powinien chyba przekierowywać na Motor Lublin (speedway team) a nie KM Cross. Myślę ze dobrze by było dodać łatkę "about" na tych stronach też tak żeby każdy trafił do tego Motoru którego szukał.

Mysłę że może warto by "Speedway in Lublin from 1996 to 2015" zrobić osobny artykuł? Wiadomo te 3 (4?) twory jako osobe artykuły to by były "stub-y" ale jeden osobny by pozwolił mieć tzw. most między KM Cross a 1-szym Motorem. Precedens byłby n.p. Milton Keynes City czy Liverpool Stanley tzn. wiele tworów niby nieżależnych ale z jedną ciągłością i same w sobie niewiele można o nich napisać. LKM Lublin mógłby być osobno bo wkońcu o nim można więcej napisać jako twórca żużla w Lublinie.

2. Stal Rzeszów i Polonia Bydgoszcz. Stal jest tylko o piłce a Polonia tylko o żużlu, a wiadomo że i żużel i piłka ma na tyle bogatą historię w obu że powinny być odzielone. Prowizorycznie na razie dodałem tylko wzmianki o innych sekcjach.

3. ROW Rybnik. Wszystkie "ROW-y" działają niezależnie i z tyle mają wspólnego z tym pierwszym wielosekcyjnym ROW-em co te dwa żużlowe Motory ze sobą. Myślę że "ROW Rybnik" powinien być "disambiguation page" a teraźniejszy "ROW Rybnik" przeniesiony na "ROW Rybnik (multi-sports club)" bo w tej chwili przekierowania idą raz od piłki raz od żużla.

Jeżeli chciałbyś jakąś pomoc lub wkład w jakiś artykuł do daj znać to spróbuję pomóc (na plwiki też to dotyczy ale rzadko zaglądam tam). Abcmaxx (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx: Witam ponownie :-) Jak na razie czas, którym dysponuję poświęcam w większości pl.wiki, ale w zimie będę bardziej dostępny i będę też częściej zaglądał tutaj. Jeśli chodzi o przekierowanie, to jak najbardziej się zgadzam. To że Motor Lublin (speedway) przekierowuje do KM Crossu, to moje niedopatrzenie po przeniesieniu treści do tego drugiego i powinno kierować do Motor Lublin (speedway team).

W przypadku oddzielnego hasła "Speedway in Lublin from 1996 to 2015", silne za, choć w artykule Motor Lublin (speedway team), nie będzie za dużo treści, ale mam w planach je rozbudować, opierając się o źródło w postaci książki Czesława Matuszka Motor, Motor, my czekamy, w której opisana jest historia wszystkich sekcji Motoru. W LPŻ-cie byłoby już więcej kilobajtów, jeśli przetłumaczylibyśmy hasło z pl.wiki LPŻ Lublin.

Stal Rzeszów, Polonia Bydgoszcz i ROW . Moim zdaniem kluby, które są encyklopedyczne powinny mieć oddzielne hasła i tak jest w przypadku tych trzech wymienionych. Wszystkie te kluby odnosiły sukcesy zarówno w piłce jak i na zużlu, więc co do notability nie ma wątpliwości. Jednak póki co, w przypadku ROW-u, można zrobić tak jak wspomniałeś, przenieść treść pod "ROW Rybnik (multi-sports club)", a z ROW-u zrobić ujednoznacznienie. W haśle o Stali, poza wzmianką w pierwszym zdaniu, nie ma nic o żużlu, więc tu trzeba byłoby utworzyć nowe hasło. Duży problem mamy z Polonią, bo tam to już w ogóle samowolka, choć w większości mowa jest o żużlu, to wspomnianie są też inne sekcje. Trzeba by się porządnie zastanowić co z tym zrobić. Roboty jest tu co nie miara :-)

Dzięki za zaoferowaną pomoc, oczywiście w razie kłopotów będę pisał. Rewanżuję się tym samym na pl.wiki :-) Cynko (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cynko. 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)[reply]

Hello, Cynko. 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)[reply]

Thank you Diki dok (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing an amazing job at reverting the person who is using IPs from Poland to change music articles to the wrong date. Thank you very much for this service!

I have created a page about this vandal to serve as a reference point for the people working against his disruption. Please feel free to add your observations and to enter new listings of IPs. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland.

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Motorlublinspeedway.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Motorlublin (1).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]