EarwigBot operator / talk 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The non-UN member unrecognized state Pridnestrovie is named with politicians from Moldova and Romania disrespectfully with a Holocaust name as Transnistria (it is a contemptuously term^[1], ^[2]).

November 29, 2000 in accordance with the recommendations of the UN by former President PMR - Smirnov issued a decree № 591 "On the transliteration and place names", according to which the name of the Transnistria in the Latin alphabet was established as Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (Pridnestrovie).

PRB, a financial representative of the TMR on the international scene has caused a stir. Its programmers have invented the three names of the republic: Trans-Dniester Moldavian Republic (TMR), Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublica (PMR), Moldova (Transdniestria). The coloring of the PRB and the Foreign Ministry website PMR added illiterate contraction of the words "street" and "city", ie «Ul» instead of «str», and «g» instead of «town».

06.04.2012 was repealed it Decree and in accordance with Art. 65 of the Constitution of Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic new president Shevchuk signed a decree number 252, which recognized only the official name of the PMR in English - Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic (Pridnestrovie)^[3].

http://profvesti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/gerbi1-1024x407.jpg --217.19.208.101 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transit infrastructure at York University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TTC (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) 11:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Farid Wassef at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ComputerJA (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, "pharmacist of the year" was not being posited as the article's primary claim of notability; it was an additional (and entirely unsourced) detail buried deep within an article whose primary claim of notability was "unsuccessful candidate in a provincial election" (which isn't a legitimate claim of notability.) And even if the award were actually being claimed and sourced as his primary notability, it's an internal award presented by a professional organization to one of its own members, for reasons which likely have at least as much to do with being active in the organization itself as with actually being better at his job than other pharmacists.

For the award to be considered notable enough to confer encyclopedic notability on its winners, there would have to be some actual evidence that the "pharmacist of the year" award is a designation that actually garners real press coverage in real media. The fact that the distinction might get mentioned in coverage of his political candidacy doesn't cut it, because people of all ideological stripes routinely use their campaign materials to promote their credentials for office in the best possible light, such as highlighting awards and honours that look good on a campaign brochure, but still aren't necessarily significant enough to make them encyclopedia material. So if you can't find evidence that he garnered media coverage specifically for winning the award itself, then the award isn't notable enough to confer notability on its winners.

Further, all of the sources that you added to the article failed WP:RS in some way: one was his own website (an invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCE), one simply mentions his name without any real content at all, and the other two were clearly reprints of his own campaign press releases rather than independent coverage — which means that the article, as written, contained no valid sources at all. As well, although it's impossible to prove definitively, the article creator's username, coupled with the fact that he or she has almost no prior edit history at all before creating that particular article, raises a very high likelihood of conflict of interest, as it was almost certainly either Mr. Waseef himself or someone directly involved in his campaign — especially since large chunks of it were copied and pasted directly from User:Faridwassef/Farid Wassef, a sandbox page whose COI is even more blatantly obvious.

There's also no requirement on Wikipedia to put an article through AFD in all cases; if an article fails one or more of our speedy deletion criteria, then it can be speedy deleted without requiring debate. Of course you always have the option of trying to repost a new version, but it would have to be much better sourced, and make a much stronger claim of notability, than the first version did. If there's another election this year and he actually wins it, for instance, then he'll certainly qualify for an article on the updated grounds of having become an actual officeholder — but in the meantime he's not notable just for running in an election, and sources just weren't there to support the actual notability of having been named "pharmacist of the year". Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Model United Nations conferences until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My sentiments as well. Just dropping by to spread some cheer. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An RfC is underway at the talk page for this article, in this thread. I am informing you of this discussion because you participated in the most recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus", and this discussion will help decide whether to keep the article in its current form, or to split the content of the article into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sample Chess Game. Since you had some involvement with the Sample Chess Game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Thanks for not accusing me of pushing a republican-PoV at the infobox discussion :) PS- It's good to see an editor who opposes my changes, taking the WP:AGF route. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. It's a good article. I am really surprised no one nominated to FAC since 09. I hope you'll support it. Outback the koala (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where have you nominated it? I don't see among the candidates. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your FAC nom page was mentioned at WT:FAC. The nom page needs a lot more work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to delete the page and remove the FAC because during the nomination procedure some essential code must been deleted. I think it would be best to start a fresh. Graham Beards (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of largest U.S. bank failures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan. 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) 09:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to previous participation in a discussion on the subject, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Communities of Oak Ridges, Ontario has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Outback the koala. 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[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Johnston Atoll into Johnston Atoll Airport. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Outback the koala. 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[reply]

Hello, I am curious about why you remade the Roman Catholicism in Somaliland article, as I could not find your reasoning for it anywhere. --Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure there was a specific reason, it seemed appropriate as the last such Africa topic page and the history is there with source enough to justify a page. Outback the koala (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop your disruptive editing, POV pushing and edit-war. You are changing 8 year stable version, without any argument or discussion.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, stop insistently writing about a matter you clearly lack the knowledge of and don't show willingness to research and describe in a neutral and balanced way. –Turaids (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clear for a long time that your edits regarding Russian occupied regions of Georiga are pro-separatist and you edit-war when someone reverts such pro-separatist pov edits. Please stop such disruptive actions, they have no sense, there always will be someone who will revert such edits. Do not edit war here Template:Catholic Church by country anymore.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please make sure to read List of sovereign states. I am not “pro-seperatist”, I am only concerned with the facts. Outback the koala (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Northern Cyprus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You edit is against consensus, re&ent discussion and the references Andrewgprout (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Outback the koala,

I would like clarify things concerning a recent editing dispute I have had on this page, and would like to extend my sincerest apologies if my recent edits have been construed as vandalism, as I and fully committed to wikipedia's guidelines. Nevertheless I want to make clear that I am NOT trying to sabotage your project in any way, on the contrary, in good faith, and in both of our interests, I am helping you guys to make reforms not pertaining to my personal biases, but to a purely objective interpretation of the facts on ground and to help you avoid much controversies (and ultimately keyboard wars and vandalisms) with people and editors from any of these countries, and I have been researching countries with limited recognition for a long time and have no biases towards any of these countries Now, the reasons I am proposing Palestine be removed is because, out of all the above mentioned states, it is the least secluded from the international community and is the only limited recognition state to have some sort of seat in the UN and state recognition from the UN (independent of its member states that did not extend such to Palestine). We can not also dismiss the fact that Palestine has been recognized by slightly more than 70% of UN members, with only 56 countries (29%, not 50%) remaining which is closer to Israel, a widely recognized state, than the rest, while the rest have 86 or more remaining. Furthermore, Palestine is not a member of the UNPO, and recently this month, it was elected as chair to the G77 group in the UN and given additional UN participation rights, much like that of Vatican. Besides, it is astoundingly clear that if a vote in the security council for its membership hits the floor, it would receive wide support (likely 9 or 8 of the non permanent members), 2 abstentions from the UK and France, 2 yes from China PR and Russia, and the only veto and opposition would be the US, and assuming that the veto is not used (which is unlikely at the present geopolitical circumstances), the GA is certain to approve it, making the prospects of future UN membership somewhat less bleak than the rest of the states on your list. BTW, the GA recently approved more rights as a UN observer participant. Lastly, I was completely aware of your projects guidelines and aims, and because it is more accurate to ad all states, UN members and not alike, who lack recognition from one or more UN members to the limited recognition category to reflect accuracies. This is the reason for my edit and once again I sincerely apologize. Once again, I am not advocating for the Palestinian or any of these causes, this is from a purely objective standpoint and not subject to my partiality regarding the legal status of any country.

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Outback the koala. 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[reply]

Your user-page Outback the koala clearly shows that you use false statements (which is misleading), you are not retired at all, instead you edit-war and push pro-separatist views. Stop your disruptive editing here and vandalization of wiki! You won't succeed.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to notify you that the article you created about the Christianity in Somaliland is being erased (with reversion) continuously by user:Onel5969. Please, explain to this wikipedian that he is wrong when he writes that "no need for standalone article about almost non-existent population". Furthermore, other countries have minimal Christian population, but they have their own article: for example, read Christianity in Yemen. Indeed all countries with their religions (even if with minimal followers) have to be present in an encyclopedia like ours. I have tried to deal with this wikipedian (who has written some articles that I think can be judged as totally irrelevant for an encyclopedia......), but he seems to be the one and only who makes decisions! Cheers. B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.204.69.81 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your tentative to open a discussion on the talk page of the article Christianity in Somaliland. Here it is a recent reference to this article "attacked" by Muslims and sympathizers: "Somaliland closes only Catholic church due to public pressure – it re-opened a week ago after 30 years" (read: [1]). Cheers. B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.87.134 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Civil Air Patrol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outback the koala, Your addition of the state militia beret flash section to the United States military beret flash article is very intriguing and has me researching to find good credible support information to back it up. From what I can gather, the only things I can find that I would consider credible evidence that we could use to cite our information are two newsletters, one from the California State Military Reserve [2] and one from the Georgia State Defense Force [3], dated 2011 and 2012 respectively, that show these state service members wearing berets with unique beret flashes. Additionally, the red style beret flash you depict only shows up as a Georgia militia beret flash on the research I have conducted thus far; I cannot find other state militia that state or show them wearing this red beret flash. In other words, we need credible information to cite as sources for this new section or it will need to be removed. Can you help find these sources? If so, I can hand-draw the beret flashes so we can represent them on this article. I look forward to your help. --McChizzle (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outback the koala, FYI: I have moved our discussion to Talk:United States military beret flash, so please respond there to our discussion. --McChizzle (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Militarization of police on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Outback the koala! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste ((Frs user|Outback the koala|limit)) underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]