User talk:Laszlo Panaflex/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Laszlo Panaflex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why my adds was been removed?[1]

As I explained in the description, the edit was ungrammatical and POV. Previous to that, you broke a couple of links and a template. And on this post, you used a Category instead of a section header. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vladimir the Great 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(Click show ⇨)
Rus' revered triggered widespread indignation. A mob killed the Christian Fyodor and his son Ioann (later, after the overall christening of Kievan Rus, people came to regard these two as the first

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Repaired. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! What is de admin. imperio? Is book? I've not found any ifnormation in the Internet. Senior Strateg (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I did not add that reference, but it apparently refers to De Administrando Imperio, by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Senior Strateg (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A sentence: The Byzantines achieved their objective, however, as Bulgarian attentions were diverted, and the Byzantines managed to cope with Slavic rebellions in Pelopones. in the context: According to Porphyrogenitus, the Bulgars sought to continue their conquest of Slav lands and to force the Serbs into subjugation. Bulgarian khan Presian I (r. 836–852) launched an invasion into Serbian territory in 839, leading to three years of war. Presian was heavily defeated, lost a large part of his army, and made no territorial gains. The Byzantines achieved their objective, however, as Bulgarian attentions were diverted, and the Byzantines managed to cope with Slavic rebellions in Pelopones. The war ended with the death of Theophilos in 842, releasing Vlastimir from his obligations to the emperor and giving the Bulgarians the opportunity to attack the Byzantine Empire and annex the area of Ohrid, Bitola, and Devol in 842–843.

In what connection Pelopones with Bulgarian-Serbian Wars? I don't understand. Senior Strateg (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is saying that while the Bulgarians were busy with their invasion of Serb territory, the Byzantines had time to deal with rebellions among the Slavs in Pelopones.[2]. I'll add a quote from Fine in a footnote to clarify. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a source: Арх��епископ Данило. Животи краљева, с. 183 (It's able to translate into english as Serbian kings' byography). I don't know what was date of pablishing? All the dates of publishing: 1866 and 1935 and 1988. Please help me. Senior Strateg (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a ten question long questionnaire and I am inviting you along with several other people including Constantine to answer the questions. It's a fun thing, I do NOT mean to bother you. I just wanted to know your thoughts. Also, I replied to your comment on the Sassanid Empire Topic on my talk page. I can't believe that has been under dispute for years. I honestly had no idea. :( Keeby101 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Like most editors, I have limited time for Wikipedia, which is best spent researching and developing the articles I am working on. These questions are discussed extensively on the relevant talk pages, and I don't have time to recount debates you could review there. Again, the point is not what I think the answers to your questions are, it is to decide how the relevant articles should treat these issues. WP is an encyclopedia, not a debating society (WP:FORUM). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for aggravating you Laszlo and I am sorry if I have aggravated anyone else, but I need you to come to my talk page NOT for the Sassanid Empire Topic or the Questionnaire Topic, but a Topic that is actually relavent. It is about WP:RS and citing sources. If I am bothering you right now then you don't have to comment on it. Again I say, I am sorry for bothering you. Keeby101 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You replied to one of my topic saying that you saw no book sources cited. I am just here to inform you that I have cited the book sources and that I finally figured out how to use citations, references, etc. If I am bothering you, you do not have to respond and I am sorry for removing comments on that topic earlier. If you visit my talk page, you will see the newly added book sources. I cited them exaclty as WP:RS instructed me to do so. :D Keeby101 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern was that you review the debate that has already taken place (in 2009, 2010, 2011, and earlier this year) so that you don't force Constantine to cover the same old ground yet again, as he has already discussed many of the issues that your map raises. You are apparently unwilling to do that, and ultimately it is his decision whether to rehash that conversation with you. At any rate, I need to return to my own research at this point. Regards, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that the whole map issue has been going on well before Constantine was around as a user on Wikipedia? With that being said, I took a look at the talk page and this has been going on since 2008. There is no way anyone can win it, not even him! Sorry for aggravating the h*ll out of everyone about this old topic. I am not unwilling to do anything, in fact just to let you know, we are talking about an empire that existed over a thousand years ago, so for all we know my map could be accurate. No one, not even the world's greatest historians will truly know how large the Sassanid or Byzantine Empire's were at their greatest extent. With that being said, we can only assume how much territory both empires had. Haven't been on the talk page of the article in days anyway as I have been heavily contributing to the Russian Empire article and the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth articles. I will continue to research those 2 topics. Peace. Keeby101 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I have encouraged you to familiarize yourself with the guidelines regarding Original Research (WP:OR), as well as other modes of conduct. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We are not here to make assumptions, we are here to summarize primary and secondary sources. When something cannot be known from existing sources, we say so. We do not fill in the blanks with our own assumptions or conclusions. Your enthusiasm to contribute to WP is welcome. But like any community, you need to understand its objectives and mores. (And before lecturing people about what they should know, perhaps you should look at their contributions page and see that they have been working on such articles for years before you arrived.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lately, I have been doing original research, especially on the French(Napoleonic), Ottoman, Frankish and Parthian Empires, but recently I have been contributing to other articles. Namely the Russian Empire article and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Articles like I said before. If you see my talk page and scroll down to the very bottom you will know. I might start contributing to the Ottoman Empire article, but just like with the Sasanian Empire talk page, old topics on the Ottoman Empire talk page get rehashed and will never be settled and I am afraid that I will be caught in the middle of it all, but none of the less I will take my chances. Anyway, I have found new sources, book sources that back up my map of the Sasanian Empire and cited all of them on my talk page, but again I have lately given that topic a rest. I might go back to the Holy Roman Empire and contribute there. And I swear I won't make a map that looks like an ink blot IF I make a map for the Holy Roman Empire at all, given the negative critism I got last time I attempted to do so. Now, I won't start an edit war the Holy Roman Empire article, but I will contribute by possibly adding a legacy section to the article. I do not want to be enemies nor do I want to be on bad terms with you either. So I will be going back to editing the Russian Empire article now. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The HRE page already has about nine maps, many highly detailed, including a gif that is itself nine maps. It also has so many images that they are crowding each other and choking the text. Another map was recently added, and if any more images are added, we will need to go to a gallery, which is not a positive development. Why it needs further maps I do not see. If anything, some should be removed -- in fact, I am currently working with another editor on removing excessive maps from the Khazars page.

As you are interested in producing maps, you may want to review MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM. I know there are an awful lot of rules and guidelines, but working within them will keep you on better terms with others, and they really are designed to make for a better end-product. I am nobody's enemy, Keeby. I'm actually trying to help you, and I'm glad you've stopped trying to "win" a fruitless edit war. Building consensus with diverse editors can be frustrating and requires patience; sometimes it isn't possible. But it can also be rewarding to collaborate with others toward the shared goal of an instructive and authoritative article. All the best, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page as I need your help on a new topic that I literally titled "URGENT NEED OF HELP!!! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!!!!" Perhaps you can enlighten me on the topic. :) Keeby101 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I know we are enemies and have quite a history on a certain talk page and I am sorry for that. Truly I am. But I have created a new article recently, and I would like for you to contribute to it. IF you all are truly as good as you all say you are at citing sources, then contribute to my article and show me how it is done! :D If you do not want to contribute to my article you can at the least share your thoughts here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive Keeby101 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, Keeby, I am not your enemy. I don't know much regarding the list of species article, though, so I don't really have anything to contribute there. Sorry, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a long time since I have reviewed this topic and almost a half a month since I went on to the talk page of that article. I recently made a request on the Wikipedia Map Workshop for a new map of the Sasanian Empire and when I did so, I told them the entire story and they took a look at all of the discussions and debates on the talk page of the article including the most recent one that was started by me when I was a new user on Wikipedia. They then proceeded to tell me to do the following:

• Start a new, calm, well thought out discussion on the article talk page for just this purpose, contribute your own position, and let other editors contribute theirs.
• If you can achieve a proper consensus amongst editors as to exactly what this map should show, then link this request to that consensus.

So I did exactly as they asked. Here is the link to the new discussion if you wish to partake:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_workshop_team

So far HistoryofIran has agreed to this, but he is also the only one who has responded to the new topic.

Please share your thoughts there. Regards and Cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I am not edit warring btw. Also, I saw that you put an awesome map of the Achaemenid Empire in the infobox of that article and I wanted to reach a consensus on the Sasanian Empire talk page so that the Cartographers on the Wikipedia Map Workshop will make a new map of the Sasanian Empire that looks very similar to the infobox map of the Achaemenid Empire in the sense of the format and quality as well as the showing of the territorial evolution of the empire itself. Regards :D. Keeby101 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zabranos (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in ABQ anymore, so those pics are all I got. But thank you for the compliments! You're doing a marvelous job with the Lobo basketball page! PerryPlanet (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pity. Thanks yourself for the nice words, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Now it does, but because a user reverted the move. See this and this, please. José Luiz ^talk 20:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The article in question was originally in American English as best I could ascertain, and just prior to my edit was an ugly mish-mash of both varieties. So I'm pretty sure the edit to make it universally in one variety of language was appropriate. I await your response. Red Slash 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• your article Umayyad Caliphate does not match to Ummayads in 45 other languages128.164.157.184 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• You need a separate page for Ummayads such that you can match to the Ummayad in 45 other languages because they don't have a separate page under the title of Umayyad Caliphate 128.164.157.184 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Your article Umayyad Caliphate does not match to Umayyads in 45 other languages.
• You need a separate page for Ummayads such that you can match to the Ummayad in 45 other languages because they don't have a separate page under the title of Umayyad Caliphate. 128.164.157.184 (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• The problem is solved. In 46 Languages, Ummayads topic is prepared! In 28 Languages, Umayyad Caliphate topic is prepared! If you don't redirect Ummayads to Umayyad Caliphate, it is solved for English.128.164.157.184 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of the article. I have no idea how to correct the problem you are filling my page up with. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you were looking for pictures of The Pit. I don't live in Albuquerque any more, but I did manage to dig up this photo I took in 2003 which is perhaps of interest because it shows the exterior prior to remodeling. Just a heads up in case you would like to use it in the article. Camerafiend (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Yes, I will use it on both the Lobo basketball and Pit pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP, 68.14.160.191,[3] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure that your replacement of "however" in sentences within the Manuel I Komnenos article improves matters grammatically. I would say that placing "however" bracketed by commas in the middle of a sentence which is qualifying a previous sentence is confusing or possibly incorrect. Comma bracketed "however"s are used when the latter part of a sentence qualifies the preceding part of the same sentence. Using "However," at the start of a sentence is usually thought of as grammatically viable, I have used it in scientific papers and a PhD thesis, but possibly stylistically debatable - possibly it is an American/British difference of opinion. If you really object to "However," at the start of a sentence then the best thing to do is to incorporate the preceding sentence into the one with the "however", thus replacing the full stop (period) with a semi-colon followed by a "however,". Alternatively the construct "Usually the barking of the dog would have alerted the people in the house. The dog was dead however, so was unable to warn the householders of the burglary." Losing the comma before the "however" makes the qualification refer to the preceding sentence. This may be thought of as a rather archaic grammatical construct, however. Urselius (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Another editor recently reverted an edit I made placing however at the beginning of a sentence, pointing out that many style manuals prefer the placement within the sentence rather than at the beginning. I'm aware that many style manuals do indeed prefer that placement, as did my writing professors in law school, so I guess you can't please everyone. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Urselius, please forgive me if I was a bit curt in my initial response; I'm a bit under the weather this week. I have a busy day ahead, but I will revisit this edit when I have the opportunity and attempt to incorporate your concerns. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am here to explain why you are wrong and the reasons behind the text that you changed. I could have reverted your edit, but edit-wars are no good. We will discuss this specific issue here instead.

Fore the hurried reader, it might seem a small thing, that I care about the differences between these text-strings:

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings, were often motivated or fuelled by their religious beliefs (ie. Norse religion), with a strong focus on the gods of Thor and Odin who were gods of war and death."

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings were often motivated by beliefs of Norse religion, focused on Thor and Odin, the gods of war and death."

But there is a an important difference, three actually. 1. In my text (the first excerpt) I put their motivation towards violence and warfare into a larger perspective, and also their religion. In your text you seem to blame the specific religion of Norse religion, which is unnecessary offending and clearly wrong. Many other cultures have being fuelled and motivated towards violence by other religions.

2. The Norse Religion, does not focus on the gods of Thor and Odin per se. It was something that was specific to the Vikings and something they intentionally did to become more warlike. Other cultures and other times have seen a more peaceful side of Norse Religion.

3. The 'fuelling' word is rather important. A large part of their raids, might in fact have been motivated be the necessity to claim more resources in order to survive. And to wind themselves up for going viking, they fuelled the warfare with their religion and specific ceremonies. It is not a redundant word.

I could restore my original text, but we could also compromise on this text:

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings were often motivated and fuelled by their beliefs in Norse religion, focusing on Thor and Odin, the gods of war and death."

You are most welcome to correct grammatical errors of course, although I cannot see any in this line. If you want to have a say on the subject, please comment here. I will gladly discuss constructively.

RhinoMind (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your compromise text is acceptable to me. As for the grammar in your initial sentence, the comma after Vikings is improper, and the parenthetical "i.e." is inelegant at best: Better to blend the reference to Norse religion directly into the text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. good, then we settle for that last line then. Btw. while we are at it, do you know of a site or a source that explains the rules of how to use commas correctly in the English language? I'll instantly admit, that my understanding is inadequate, but I dont know how to learn it properly. In Denmark the use of commas has been "given free", due to many years of grammatical-"wars" so to speak. Ok, that was a bonus-question. RhinoMind (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a difficult question, and I've recently been involved in a "grammar war" of my own. A number of style manuals are mentioned in that discussion: Strunk & White and Fowler's are two primary guides, but I don't believe they are available on-line; this Oxford manual is on-line, but it is a bit cursory. While the conclusion of the dispute I link to was that British and American punctuation is quite similar, I'm aware that Germanic languages and Russian have very different norms. Wish I could be more help, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9. opened up SOI investigation. Thanks. Avono (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Just stop accusing me using socket. Don't be childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - responded, completed survey. Not planning to renew. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A fervent Roman Catholic or something? You seem to keep insisting that the Roman Empire is the ""Byzantine"" Empire. Look man I miss the Sacrum Romanum Imperium too but let's be fair.--Sιgε |д･) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The argument over Byzantine vs East Roman raged for years -- you were already directed to links to the numerous arguments on the subject. It was divisive and worked to the detriment of the Byzantine Empire page and others. You have not raised any new arguments. So trying to reopen that controversy, yet again, constitutes disruptive editing. Please accept consensus and stop trying to reopen this dispute. (And how any of that relates to the HRE eludes me.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding your AD templates that directly violate WP:ERA. You apparently didn't know that policy with your first round of changes, but now you clearly do, yet you continue to add your template. Please stop. (@Future Perfect at Sunrise:) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What if I make the template like AD?--Sιgε |д･) 18:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The policy states, "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case." Why do two letters require a template? If you question the policy, you should raise the question at the MoS page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That is uppercase though? Just in < small > markup. It looks fancy doesn't it?--Sιgε |д･) 18:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The point of the Manual of Style is to develop a uniform style across WP for clarity and cohesion. Otherwise we end up with a variety of fancy looks and styles and no consistency among pages. Propose your design at the MoS, if you wish. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok--Sιgε |д･) 00:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Laszlo Panaflex,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Newspapers.com has been an invaluable resource for a couple of research projects I am currently working on. It has enabled me to check and correct numerous facts and sources on Wikipedia. I have added a number of citations using Newspapers.com, and I have a large number of clippings there that will render further cites on Wikipedia as my research continues. Some specifics:

• In my mind, the best Wiki-work I have done over the past year has been creating and authoring the article for Ray Crowe, who was a coach, administrator, and public official in Indianapolis. The sources I was working with for that page had various conflicts regarding the timing of his career transitions. Using Newspapers.com clippings, I was able to find precise dates, cite and link to them. There would have been no way to be certain about some of these dates using regular internet sources, so this resource was key to getting the dates correct.
• I’m working on a larger project regarding the history of the University of New Mexico, its coaches and administrators, and their links to Indiana and Iowa. This has already led to numerous cites to Newspapers.com and will lead to many more being added as my work continues. A lot of this work would not be possible without Newspapers.com unless I actually traveled to Indianapolis and spent days in the library there.
• While I haven’t added as many cites as I would have liked at this point, I have found other ways to draw traffic to Newspapers.com. For instance, I’ve tweeted many links to my clippings with strong response. An author friend of mine had a physical newspaper clipping that was ripped, and he was seeking information about the article. I was able to find the article and send him a link to the clipping. He was so impressed with the database he told me he purchased an account to check other sources he only had notes for.

I have over a hundred Newspapers.com clippings and links set aside. Many of these have already been added as Wikipedia cites and many more will be as my research continues. So I am quite concerned over obtaining renewal of my account. If I lose access to my clippings, I will also lose many hours of work. So I am going to have to go full-on ‘pretty please with a cherry on top’ in requesting renewal (!). I’ve found Newspapers.com an excellent and useful resource that is allowing me to do research that I otherwise would not be able to pursue. Please renew my account so I may continue that work. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They are using Vivacom, so I don't know how much more blocking more IPs will help. Unfortunately, it will come down to either doing page protection or just reverting everytime. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll get bored and move on. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Byzantine" is a pejorative label used by "Enlightenment", overzealous Roman Catholic, and generally anti-Greek and anti-Orthodox groups ever since the 19th century. and does not represent WP:NPOV, and in fact shows WP:BIAS of the Anglosphere Western majority of Wikipedia. The ERE was called the Roman Empire (Romania, etc) by nearly everyone (even Muslims!) except by supporters of the HRE and others throughout its 2000-year reign.--Sιgε |д･) 15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length at the Byzantine Empire talk page. Please take your concerns there. I will not pursue this maddening discussion here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So you canot prove me wrong, and instead hide behind red tape? How bureaucratic.--Sιgε |д･) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, this issue has been discussed for years. For instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and ... this is only a partial list!). I suggest you review those previous discussions, and if you have other issues to raise, do so at the Byzantine page. If you are simply going to raise issues that have already been discussed, as you do above, then you are merely being disruptive. There is no reason to rehash that argument again here. What you call "red tape" and "bureaucratic," we call gaining consensus. It is how disputes are resolved here. If you cannot participate as a member of the community -- for example by providing edit summaries and accepting consensus of the other users -- then perhaps you should move on to other pursuits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case, isn't it convenient how WP:DEADHORSE is not an eternal Wiki law set in stone from God? Attitudes and perspectives can change from 2012. Can I ask you your opinion on the naming dispute, please?--Sιgε |д･) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is that the Byzantine Empire talk page is the proper place for this discussion. I will not rehash it here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The East Roman Empire talk page, you mean? ;)--Sιgε |д･) 17:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sigehelmus. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You have dedicated most of your recent activity to stalking me. Please stop. Sige |д･) 15:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Sigehelmus is retaliating here because I cautioned him against making abusive remarks about Ealdgyth in a thread on his talk page that he has since removed. He responded by making further abusive remarks toward Ealdgyth and myself, before removing the thread. Asking you not to engage in personal attacks is neither harassment nor stalking, Sigehelmus, and civility is a requirement, not a dodge. (And to answer your now-deleted accusation, you inquired about my religion here). Again, please limit your comments to article content, not other contributors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That was no an inquiry to your religion. Context clues, lad, learn them (see Fourth Crusade). Also stop playing the victim when you're being a stalker.--Sige |д･) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"So are you... A fervent Roman Catholic or something?" I'm not playing anything. If you continue to attack others, your editing privileges may be blocked. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you continue to stalk and harass me, your editing privileges may be blocked. I'll contact Jimbo Wales himself if I have to. Can you have mercy on this poor, unfortunate soul that merely asks to be left alone when I am the victim here? You know what mate? I hardly recall what I am even arguing in the first place. It's a bit cumbersome over the interwebs, but would you like to chat over tea? I would ask for Skype but it's nothing but bloatware and spyware. I would prefer a free and open source alternative such as Tox. No wait, better idea; you got Steam? Have you ever played Crusader Kings II? Lovely game it is. Ah I'm sorry for earlier. Can your PC play games? Ah look at me ranting, oh well. Eh, just letting my stream of thought flow here you know? Quite pleasant it is. Anyway I like the cut of youur jib. Nice to meet you, name's Polycarp (no really, grr Mum and Dad were "creative"). how are you?--Sige |д･) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this dispute? Oirats&action=history Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring.Rajmaan (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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 (☎) 01:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alphabetizing the flags on the Kievan Rus' page. I'm so sick of the Ukrainian/Russian edit wars on that page. You've given a rational solution to at least one of these conflicts, so editors like Irina Harpy and I can righteously undo future revisions. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there something personal you have against me to revive the old Ottoman Armenian picture?, I'm willing to go back to the article and have another round of discussion the image if this is your plan? The issue was resolved long ago Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith: Stop assuming bad faith in my edits, thank you. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As noted by numerous editors in these ANI and EW discussions, this is a pattern of combative behavior for you. It is difficult to assume good faith when you constantly make patronizing remarks, insults, and accusations. I have not seen a single interaction that you have engaged in that did not include this sort of disruptive behavior. It is ironic that you link to ABF, as a number of the examples of bad faith listed there could be taken directly from your edit summaries and talk page remarks. You ask if this is something personal to me, yet at least a dozen editors complain about your behavior at the discussions above. That should tell you something. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>It is difficult to assume good faith when you constantly make patronizing remarks, insults, and accusations.
It's also equally difficult when people lie to me and accuse me of wrongdoings and stalk me and try to gather forces, I will be the better man and forgive you for all your wrongdoings at me.
>I have not seen a single interaction that you have engaged in that did not include this sort of disruptive behavior.
Again please stop accusing me and stop spreading misinformation, just because you never saw Chinese person doesn't mean Chinese person doesn't exist. It;s not my fault that you are to eager to spread misinformation about me.
>You ask if this is something personal to me
Yes I ask if there is a personal issue you have me that you want to deal with it in your talk page as I came here to inquire about it. You are ready to bring up past incidents and fuel the fire. These behavior reminded me of middle school students or people who hod grudge for long.
>yet at least a dozen editors complain about your behavior at the discussions above.
Again you are using an Argumentum ad populum which is a fallacy.
>That should tell you something.
It tells me nothing or did you expect me to roll down and worship you? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)