User talk:Provacitu74

In response to your feedback

try requesting that it be protected at WP:RPP.

Ryan shell (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 

Varenne and Ribot

Hi Provacitu74. The reason I keep reverting your edits at Varenne is that you are using flag icons in a way which is contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines: WP:MOSFLAG. As for Ribot (horse), a horse's "nationality" is determined by where they were born. As the lead of the article makes clear, Ribot was foaled in Britain and trained throughout his racing career in Italy. It does seem a bit unfair, but throughout history, many of the big Italian breeders have sent their mares abroad to be mated to the best stallions: see also Falbrav and Ramonti.  Tigerboy1966  02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons

Please do not put flag icons in infoboxes. See WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

you're a crook, forger, you're bad information. Wikipedia is not free, is controlled by Anglo-American people that transforms reality by showing the United States and England as the best. Ribot comes from UK , that I have already stated, why you must also write "country : UK "? So people think that the horse is English , while is an Italian heritage, Italian myth. Ribot also is the best horse of all time, why I can not write this? is the reality! Statistics, victories say this! You would go denounced and imprisoned for what you do!

regarding these fucking flags,why I can not put them in the pages of Varenne? The pages of the Standardbred American Monimaker have flags http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moni_Maker, but you do not say anything, right? ridiculous!

Talk

Hello, Provacitu74. You have new messages at Avaagaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laura Branigan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• became her biggest hit internationally, topping the charts in over six countries, most notably {[[West Germany]], where it spent six weeks at #1. The original version of "Self Control," recorded

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Branigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday News (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) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal computer

All the additions you made could be useful but you failed to provide any sources. WP:RS. Please source the HP lawsuit and other things you wish to add. Alatari (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fascism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Personal computer without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! McGeddon (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But like the template says, "it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary". --McGeddon (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The problem isn't that I think the source might be wrong, just that a blog isn't regarded a "reliable source" by Wikipedia, so we need to use a better quality source. A reader of the article should be able to verify for themselves that every statement made by Wikipedia is supported by a reliable source; they won't know - and shouldn't have to know - that User:Provacitu74 personally vouched for a blog because he'd seen a documentary saying the same thing. To the reader, a blog that someone has independently verified is indistinguishable from a blog that is wrong and hasn't ever been checked.

If we have a solid documentary source that makes the exact same claim as the blog, that's great, and we should just use that instead. (And no, I don't speak Spanish.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that I think the statement in the article is wrong, just that the source is not reliable. It is possible for an unreliable source to be correct! It's just that Wikipedia always prefers to use reliable sources (newspapers, books, academic papers) instead of unreliable sources (blogs, personal websites, Twitter). --McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Provacitu74. 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)