User talk:Operator873/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Operator873. 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.

Hello Operator873. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. (Message left unsigned by Sheebledeeble @ 2004, 29 September 2017)

@Sheebledeeble: You're very welcome. However, I'd strongly encourage you to take a look at WP:CITE before selecting any more references. References provided must be of a recognized source that is not the entity you're speaking of. (In other words, using "Company A" as a reference for information about "Company A" is not a good reference.) I welcome you to send me more questions if you like. I'm happy to help. At the end of your messages, be sure to type ~~~~ to leave your signature and timestamp. Operator873^CONNECT 20:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

HI

May I ask how you got the black name with the shadow around it? I am curious about that. --Figfires (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Figfires: It's CSS. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000000 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#000000 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#000000> Feel free to steal it and play with the coding. It ends up being a lot of fun! Operator873^CONNECT 01:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

There is no set reference. I am the General Manager of 808 Mafia and Southside has instructed me to clean things up. The only reference material is their contracts and I am not about to put those out there. Please let me know what how else I can fix this otherwise I will have to have our lawyer get involved and get things taken down that way.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriginalbiscuit (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Theoriginalbiscuit:Hello and thanks for offering to help expand Wikipedia! Unfortunately, the Conflict of Interest policy specifically discourages edits that are made by the entity or employees of the entity in question on the article. I'd strongly encourage you to visit The Teahouse where you can ask for and quickly obtain expert editor assistance and guidance. Don't forget to add ~~~~ after all of your messages to add a time-stamped signature. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Operator873^CONNECT 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe you reverting my edits on Eric Hargan was a mistake.

@Lighthouse3050: I believe you're right. I've corrected the revision. Operator873^CONNECT 20:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Operator873: Thank you! Lighthouse3050 20:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As reference I had some newspaper images from old archive. So the link I gave may not be international standard but the Image of the newspapers are reliable. Plz add this major mistake wikipaedia has made. Its India, not Bhutan who recognized Bangladesh first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.249.65.21 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Is correct and what actually happens in the show, what is up there now is incorrect. My edit fixes that incorrect information, how is it now productive? Have you watched the show? What is your reason for rejecting my edit and saying that it is not productive?

My edit on El Barco (here

Heezmagnif (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Heezmagnif

@Heezmagnif: I went back looked at your changes. Then I went and did some research. After looking into things, I've found that your edits were appropriate and have been restored. I apologize for the misunderstanding and I really appreciate your contribution! Please continue to Be Bold! Operator873^CONNECT 00:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

fuck u (unsigned comment by 76.17.35.244 (talk)‎ . . (7,798 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Fuck u: new section)

@76.17.35.244: Well aren't you a ray of sunshine? Operator873^CONNECT 20:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment redacted for decency sake. Operator873^CONNECT 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am Stace Nelson. Political opponents continue to post untrue comments about me on the page. Everything from changing my religious beliefs, to comments about my family, to including lies about claims that have been proven false or were never even officially alleged. Help! Stace Nelson(xxx) xxx-xxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.247.105 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@216.106.247.105: If that is the case, you should read THIS before you continue editing any article on Wikipedia. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral when making edits or writing articles that you are connected to by employment, interest, family, etc. I've also redacted your personal information as this has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks! Operator873^CONNECT 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please review the numerous changes that political opponents and hatchet jobs are attempting to use Wiki to slander me with blog posts, and unsubstantiated claims from everything to changing my faith, lies about my family, claims I am dead, to revommited lies claiming I threatened to kill someone, etc, etc, ad nauseam. Delete the page about me if you are going to allow the slander and vandalism to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.247.105 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I added 2 corrections to Lovely Rita which you have reversed. The corrections were that 1) the personnel listing includes Shawn Phillips as backing vocals and cites MacDonald as a source for this. I have MacDonald in front of me & it does not mention Phillips at all. Hence, while a source is listed, it is not correct. Feel free to check MacDonald and see for yourself, but this is correct. As no-one other than Shawn Phillips claims that Phillips sung backing vocals on Lovely Rita, there is already a source for Phillips claiming this. But I cannot add a source proving that he didn't because it is impossible to prove a negative. As there is no reliable source for Phillips' claim, I edited this to read that the claim was unproven. You are asking me to prove my edit, but all I did was correct a claim which has not been proven. (Unsigned comment by 2a02:c7d:76c2:d600:f104:297d:7c90:8a9b (talk) )

@2A02:C7D:76C2:D600:F104:297D:7C90:8A9B: For living persons, adding potentially contentious or damaging information requires a independent and major source. Please refer to this policy for more information. Specifically this part. As you continue to work and contribute to Wikipedia, please ensure you are signing your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Operator873^CONNECT 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What exactly was not constructive? Being objective is not constructive? But instead, making a deeply conservative, nazi-sympathizer and falsifier like Solzhenitsyn look like a poor little thing that was brave and hunted is ...constructive.

Well, some facts: He was an outspoken admirer of Spanish dictator Franco. Was he not? He publicly admitted it during an interview on spanish TV. A nationalist who missed and idealized the Czarist Russia -tells us a lot about his character- who felt pity for the "poor" SS prisoners of war at the Red Army's hands. He was a supporter of the war in Vietnam, he even rejected Amnesty International as too liberal. He also exaggerated to such a huge degree (about the numbers of prisoners in soviet camps) that any person with basic brain function would burst out laughing. He claimed 110 MILLION dead in the Soviet Union. The number by itself shows his anti-communist hysteria. When the Soviet Archives were opened by Yeltsin (expecting to corroborate these wild claims) they were frustrated to find out that the executions during the Soviet era were about 780.000. Too low for Solzhenitsyn and Yeltsin's expectations... Still, he is portrayed as a brave man of literature, blah blah blah... Let's summarize. Liar beyond measure, czarist, nationalist, fascist-nazi sympathizer. A real piece of shit, wasn't he?

Some material: [1] Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror, Mehring Books, 1998.

[2] Reshetovskaya, Natalya. Sanya: My Life With Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Indianapolis/New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1974.

[3] The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049.

[4] Andreev, E.M., et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

[5] BT.Urlanis, Trends in fertility level in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the years of Soviet rule, 1980.

[6] Getty J.A, Rittersporn G, Zemskov V. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Prewar Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence, American Historical Review, 98:4, Oct. 1993.

@46.12.222.192: The sentence you added, "He was a fascist and supporter of spanish dictator Francisco Franco" in this edit did not contribute to the quality of the article, was not supported by a source, and appeared to be largely a personal ideological stance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and maintains a neutral point of view. Any derogatory, defamatory, or potentially controversial information must be sourced as required by policy. It looks like you have some information gathered, from what you left here, I strongly suggest you utilize the article's talk page to discuss adding information with more experienced Wikipedians. Operator873^CONNECT 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)