Bronze2018

2016 in paleobotany

How exactly were these edits disruptive? And why did you remove the taxa that were actually described in the cited paper? (Even if you don't have access to the cited paper they are listed in the abstract; they also have entries on the website http://fossilplants.info). Regards. --188.146.71.205 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to use {{uw-delete2}} Bronze2018 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That template seems to refer to removal of content, so I still don't see what this had to do with my edits. I haven't removed any content.--188.146.71.205 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed several table rows Bronze2018 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

These are my edits. What are you referring to? Because it seems to me you are the one who removed the table rows that I added, i.e. the ones where the species Potamogeton kondinskajae, P. novorossicus, P. pashkovii, P. rutiloides, P. snigirevskajae and P. volgensis were listed.
In any case, is there any reason these species cannot be listed? How can I add them back without deleting something? Or can you add them back perhaps? Regards. --188.146.71.205 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I concede. Bronze2018 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--188.146.71.205 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bro please upload a profile picture on Magrahat college Wikipedia page Sajalsm (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Bro please upload a profile picture on Magrahat college Wikipedia page Sajalsm (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Maikelele

Hi! I've declined your speedy deletion request for Maikelele. I don't think it satisfies the strict criteria for speedy deletion as set out in WP:A7. If you disagree, you could list it for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD instead.  —SMALLJIM  10:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi, before I seek further assistance, could you explain why your restored unsourced content, a resume listing, poor writing and removed a justly deserved maintenance template here [1]? I've already asked an administrator to take a look at the article, which is unacceptable in its current form. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously not acceptable in it's current form. This does not, however mean it should be deleted. It means that one should spend some time on NPOV and references. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I started to do, but it doesn't explain your reversions. I will ask for help from experienced editors, perhaps at the BLP noticeboard. We don't publish resumes or puff pieces. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no explanation for removing the list of group exhibitions. Also, I tend to use twinkle with all the finesse of a club. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to include them, unless there are multiple sources mentioning her inclusion in particular shows. Usually most commercial and academic gallery shows aren't notable--if it were otherwise, my Wiki bio, and that of all artists, would be lengthy resumes, in effect, advertisements. As for twinkle, I surrendered my rollback privileges because it's too easy to misuse. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't require rollback privileges, and I feel that making a mistake in reverting about .5% of the time is worth it when that mistake can be undone. Which has happened prior to this if you look at prior conversations on this talk page. Also, I redid some of your edits, namely, unlinking all of the exhibition names. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that twinkle is not synonymous with rollback; I'm referring to the use of easily automated, rather than more rudimentary applications. I have no doubt that the mistake ratio from a constructive account is small, but that does not mean they don't happen. I've even made them. But nobody likes to be engaged in proper refactoring, as I was doing, and have it undone by a drive-by. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

When you are checking 100-150 pages per hour for vandalism manually, one starts to get a little rash in reverting before seeing the entire diff. And a little short-tempered when it comes to vandalism, real or hastily perceived. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I know it well. And I know that acknowledging the mistake and apologizing is the only option. As a matter of experience, it's easier to slip up when you're checking and warning at that rate, and for that length of time. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you have an account? Usually it seems that after a week or so IPs either stop editing or create an account Bronze2018 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Bronze2018, whether I edit as an IP or a registered account is so very beside the point. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nom nom nom. Bronze2018 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ciao. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you color your signature? Bronze2018 (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a gift from the Hon. User:Berean Hunter. He is repository of all knowledge. Although if you look at the raw signature (open the edit window) it looks straight forward to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How does it get applied to every signature? Bronze2018 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's in prefs. Bronze2018 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Nice job fighting vandals! Peter Sam Fan 02:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers

Well, I don't agree (think it's significant enough for the lede), but not going to pursue.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that that line either needs to be assimilated into another paragraph or removed. It is depressingly short. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Amazon River

I guess you're referring to the fact that I made the spelling in the article consistent. That's not vandalism, it's a policy requirement. 87.81.237.158 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You made it consistently incorrect according to both American and British English in many areas. Also, could you please just drop it with Aloha27? Bronze2018 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You've used the wrong boilerplate message. The Manual of Style says:

While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

I'm saying that I do not know of any dialects of English which spell hypothesized as 'hypothesised' Bronze2018 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because you're in the United States. This is simply "hypothesis" with an "e" at the end. See [2]. 87.81.237.158 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Boy, aren't we making assumptions here... Bronze2018 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(comment) I had a notice on my talk page about this discussion. Personally, I believe it would be better to discuss article content on the talk page of the article, rather than a user talk page. I'll start a discussion over there (edit - see: Talk:Amazon_River#Recent edits). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Restoring talk page content

Hi Bronze, regarding this edit, I think you may have unintentionally violated WP:BLANKING, in that I would say the IP does have the right to delete content from their Talk page if they'd like; they just can't modify it to say something it didn't originally say. I didn't want to outright revert your change without giving you a chance to let me know your rationale. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't read that one. Also, I probably wouldn't have reverted if it weren't for the tone of the edit summary. Bronze2018 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

So other than my tone (which I do apologize for -- I gave my edits my best effort and it was frustrating to see them go) I did nothing wrong. I am going to clear my Talk page and would very much appreciate an apology from you. Thanks in advance.

Some editors regularly archive to history - for example, copies of the Signpost. I don't think there's anything sinister behind it. 87.81.237.158 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Some vandals clear their talk page after being warned in an attempt to absolve themselves of blame. Bronze2018 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would invite you to take the time to actually read what I had edited and was subsequently reverted -- you will clearly see that I had no malicious intent. Your assumption that I'm a vandal because you didn't care for my tone is misguided to say the least.

Re: vandalism by IP

I understand your frustration with 79.113.134.115, but in the future let's try to keep the temperature down and avoid comments like "you WILL lose" regardless of the problem. I'm sure that I don't need to quote policies/guidelines/essays at you, but one that's really relevant here is "Wikipedia is not about winning." Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

.

But i just add the image nothing else Vq2501 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Besides introducing typos. Also, the image is named inappropriately. Bronze2018 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Bronze2018,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bronze2018. 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)

April 2017

I didn't make any "disrputive edits" on Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala. All I have done is discuss. Falsely and wrongly accusing others can also get you blocked. Please stay within the rules. What a winner59.96.132.131 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread the IP on the post as 96.something and hit revert for the reasons described in the warning.

Edit summary at Sean Hannity

Hello, Bronze2018, and thanks for all you do at Wikipedia. I just wanted to comment on your edit summary here. Please don't throw around terms like "awfully libelous". Wikipedia takes allegations of libel extremely seriously. "Libel" has a legal definition, of which the key component is "false"; pointing out some of the controversial things a person has said does not come close to meeting that definition. If that material had been even potentially libelous, I would have revdel'ed it on the spot. But it was just a well-sourced paragraph reporting some of Hannity's more controversial actions. Now, it's possible the material may be kept out per WP:UNDUE or WP:NEUTRALITY considerations - there's a discussion at the talk page right now about whether to keep it, and you are welcome to join it. I can tell you are an experienced and good-faith editor, so I just wanted to caution you not to use the word "libel" or "libelous" loosely. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about the legal definition and was using it in the general sense of any sort of personal attack Bronze2018 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you program in JavaScript...

The JavaScript WikiProject is now up and running. We organize and develop JavaScript articles, navigation aids, and user scripts.

The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.

If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.

Hope to see you there! The Transhumanist 15:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bronze2018. 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)