User talk:Yopie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 11 March 2016

Thanks Yopie

Hi, I am Guilatshalit, and I wanna say Thank you Yopie for your comments, I hope to improve my articles and keep on editing wikipedia, thanks for your advice , now I will preview my articles before I edit , thank you so much.

czech prime ministers

I have another source that podivinsky is member of kdu-csl http://kducsl.cz/getmedia/966f7a80-58e6-4095-a70a-cc889e1435a0/KDU-CSL---KL-PSP2013-MSL.pdf.aspx note that candidate number 8 is clearly marked as independent.

revert

Why did you revert my entry on the list of foreign award winners of the Ordre des palm academique?? I have been awarded this year and I have proof! Natacha

Your edits on Brno

Hello. I have reverted your repeated claim about executions being public and attended by local Germans (initially even claiming that they paid admissions fees). The first source, fronta.cz, is a user-contributed site and thus not a reliable source per Wikipedia's rules (meaning it can't be used as a reference), and there's as far as I can see no mention of public executions attended by local Germans in the other one. Also please stop removing the German name of the city from the lead of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Brno

Hello. Please stop your POV edits on Brno. Even if the source you added is reliable by Wikipedia's standards, which it IMO isn't (ISSN numbers have nothing to do with how reliable they are...), it does not say that "local Germans attended" the executions. That's entirely your own original research. And under "General guidelines", in the section "The lead", WP:PLACE expressly says that "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted". So stop. Thomas.W ^talk 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what you dont understand in simple rule WP:PLACE:"All alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves...Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."--Yopie (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added some Czech text to the source in the article, the problem with that is that it doesn't support your edit. The article says "Executions were public and local Germans attended", while the Czech text only says that "executions were public", it does not say that anyone actually attended, and it does above all not single out local Germans. I'm neither German nor Czech, and have no personal opinion about it, but you cannot add a statement like that without having a reliable source that says exactly what you add to the article. So what you're doing is adding original research. Thomas.W ^talk 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 21st century editing.

I will keep reverting your edit if you keep putting in the short 20th century. Plus, the reason I am doing that is because its about history the article you keep putting it in. Its talking about the calander and numbers of the 21st century.The short 20th century should have a wikipedia article of its own. 21st century is from 2001-2100 century is a century. I'll stop reverting if you gladly stop saying it began at the end of the 1914-1991 period. 21st century is the year 2001 and after nothing before that. I don't want it there because i am worried that people are gonna be confused by what a short century is so I think its better to have an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodworker87rrrrty54 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rd millennium

Hi there,

On the 21st century article, there is an explanation about how the 21st century differs slightly from the 2000s (century). Many people argue about whether the millennium and century began in 2000 or 2001. It would thus be helpful to explain what the 2000s would truly mean if referring to other than the period from 2000 to 2009.

Thanks, 151.225.85.68 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 Hi there,
-On the [[21st century]] article, there is an explanation about how the 21st century differs slightly from the 2000s (century). Many people argue about whether the millennium and century began in 2000 or 2001. It would thus be helpful to explain what the 2000s would truly mean if referring to other than the [[2000s (decade)|period from 2000 to 2009]].
+On the [[21st century]] article, there is an explanation about how the 21st century differs slightly from the [[2000s]] (century). Many people argue about whether the millennium and century began in 2000 or 2001. It would thus be helpful to explain what the [[2000s]] would truly mean if referring to other than the [[2000s (decade)|period from 2000 to 2009]].
 Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/151.225.85.68|151.225.85.68]] ([[User talk:151.225.85.68|talk]]) 05:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)