/Archive_1

You should create sections on talk pages yourself, rather than simply revert warring and telling the other party to bring it to the talk page. If you have a problem with article content, do NOT post to the talk page of the user, but rather the talk page of the article. Tim.thelion (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD it is your duty to take it to the talk page if you're reverted. It is you who have to convince other editors, not the inverse. Anyway, you've been reported for edit warring. UCaetano (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here is the vector version of Achaemenid map based on this map. This map doesn't contain names. You can add it if you want. Finally, is it ready to used? Can it be replaced with this map? Ali Zifan 02:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I uploaded a version of Achaemenid map under different kings conquests based on this source this and this. If you see any problems in it feel free to add your opinion on my talk page. I also will be glad to know your opinion and your review upon this image. Bests-- Ali Zifan 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have undone my edit on the Alexander the Great page. I can probably understand your concern that my edit was perhaps an instance of historical revisionism; however it is not. I was simply correcting the section as someone edited it to add the mount Meru bit, however kept the sources. Yet these sources do not support the mount Meru point but that of the one with the earth being elliptical with an elliptical orbit. Indeed, on the issue of mount Meru that is traditional Hindu "cosmology" (as it was describing the universe, not the solar system) and was not accepted beyond explaining the metaphysical universe, in traditional Indian astronomy/astrology; however, the use of a planetary model with elliptical orbits was favored until the arrival of the Ptolemaic model which proved popular as the arithmetic was simpler. I will hold off on undoing your undo until I here back from you if you have any pressing concerns. ThanksBodha2 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bodha2:, thanks for bringing this to my talk page. My revert wasn't about the mount Meru bit, I'm fine with that, but with the choice of words, replacing:

• eventually supplanted the long-standing Indian cosmological belief

with:

• competed with the long-standing Indian cosmological belief

And replacing:

• show the influence of Greek astronomical ideas on Indian astronomy.

with:

• show the influence of Greek thought.

Those replacements are, IMHO, oversimplifications. Feel free to change the mount Meru bit, but be careful not to oversimplify the rest of the text. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Duly noted. I will revert the edit and endeavor to avoid any simplifications. thanksBodha2 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you will join the discussion , and will not abuse the flag for participation in the war amendments to support their friends ? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in edit wars. If your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and DO NOT try to add it again until the issue is resolved in the talk page. UCaetano (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that after participants roll back my edits under some false pretext ( what has happened ) , they will just me zabaltyvat until I tear at insulting or go out of the discussion , having been disappointed in trying something up bring them. And you know perfectly well ,that the rollback edits one of the parties without any arguments , it is the same part in the war and edits flag abuse Solaire the knight (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it, you've been reported. UCaetano (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done anything wrong. I have just tried to improve some of the maps in some article. And I think your outlook at this matter is very weird, specially when you say I have done vandalizing by including the map of the Parthian empire.Arman ad60 (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring, disrespecting WP:3RR, and pushing your map despite opposition from other editors. Please stop doing it. You have been warned, and will be reported to administrators on your next edit. UCaetano (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UCaetano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article University of Campinas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article University of Campinas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:University of Campinas for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article University of Campinas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:University of Campinas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Por que ampliar o verbete da Unicamp aqui e não na pt.wiki? Chronus (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 motivos:

- Relevância: a WP em EN acaba tendo muito mais abrangencia do que em PT

- Qualidade: a WP em PT é em geral de baixa qualidade, e os editores não seguem muito as guidelines, então eu evito editar por lá

- Tempo: eu planejo fazer a tradução para outras linguas no futuro, mas não tive tempo ainda. Porém é muito mais fácil traduzir para outras linguas do Inglês, vs. do Português

UCaetano (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mas se formos seguir essa lógica, a pt.wiki vai morrer com artigos de baixa qualidade, não concorda? Como lusófonos, deveríamos melhorar a Wikipédia lusófona, não? De qualquer maneira, você fez um excelente trabalho e é bom que um verbete sobre uma universidade brasileira esteja completo por aqui. Parabéns! Tomei a liberdade, inclusive, de traduzir o material para a língua portuguesa. Cumprimentos cordiais. Chronus (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eu acho que não. Tem muito mais gente que fala PT e entende do Brasil do que gente que fala EN bem e entende do Brasil. Eu ví a sua tradução, ficou ótima, muito obrigado! Eu consegui levar o artigo da Unicamp a good article, minha próxima meta é levar para featured article, mas estou sem tempo ultimamente. Abs. UCaetano (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UCaetano. 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]

Bounjour. This is 2016 data, not 2017, from World Bank DataBank. I'll update this when data for 2017 is available. 'Imports' is negative because it's a reduction in aggregate demand.GiovanniMartin16 (talk)

There is already a talk page in the UC Berkeley page about "Boosterism" and the debate in using subjective words such as "prestige." There is a similar, on-going discussion in the Columbia University page and it is important to be consistent. If a consensus is not reached, you need to adhere to Wikipedia's policy and not continue to edit war and post further. Please continue your discussion on the UC Berkeley talk page otherwise your account is at the risk of being banned or blocked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.140.9 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2018 (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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Into the Breach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stadia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]