User talk:Androoox

3663:(which is patently false). BrownHairedGirl (BHG) gave you a warning that the renaming was not supported by consensus and that if you continued, you could be blocked. You either missed the notifications that your talk page had changed or elected to not heed the warning and continued to change pages. BHG then implemented a block to prevent you from (temporarily disrupting) the encyclopedia any further. Once you started throwing out the term vandalism with respect to BHG's rollbacks you lost the debate on whom has the backing of consensus. That you cited the BotRequest change shows that you had read the advice I have there that there needed to be a 742:

of the English Knowledge). We had a huge discussion, advertised at all the right places, and 100% agreement from two dozen editors... and the day the change was finally made (it couldn't be done by editors, but had to be sent to software developers), we had a hundred people screaming at us and telling us that nobody had ever talked about anything and that the devs were evil and stupid for doing what everyone else had agreed to. (And, no, when we gave them proof that it had been advertised and discussed, they did not apologize for these false accusations.)

666:- I turned it on yesterday, and it warned me already several times. I noticed it does not warn for minor edits. I would suggest it is turned on by default. So it is less received as a message targeted to a person (can have personal attack like feelings), but as a general message that is send automated and not enshrined in a users talk page. I think that can improve user experience a lot. And anyone can concentrate on working on other things. Avoid any manual work, if it can be done automated. Best regards to all of you. 2914: 1885: 804:, plus all sorts of goodies to make sure you don't have to spend time typing in parameters for citations, as well as various useful little js scripts. Dependent on what and how you want to contribute, having too many features turned on as default would be information overload which could put some new users off (although I, personally, would prefer to see the edit summary prompt on as default). Becoming familiar with Knowledge is a bit of a learning curve... but well worth the while! -- 770:, I manually copy and paste. Usually, I have composed a response offline (I hate edit conflicts), and paste the same thing into both the edit window and the edit summary box. If I am replying specifically to a specific person, I try to remember to say to in the edit summary, although it is also good to put their name at the start of the comment. This is what I do for talk page post summaries. For articles and project pages, a more customised summary is better. -- 170: 3999: 3100:

already on the CFD page that I submitted several proposals to improve consistency. Your automated reversion, which also reverted valid edits, is creating more problems than it solves. And two editors supported the rename of the main page, a third brought an extra ref for the new name. The page was there for 1 month already. It was stable and sourced. A reversion could have been discussed. A revert could have been implemented then. And not a general rollback.

1948:". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Please note that the existence of multiple uses of an existing title is not sufficient reason to disambiguate. It must also be demonstrated that the existing use is not the primary topic of that title. Cheers! 4574: 1421: 71: 4674: 4185: 1341: 349: 1925: 409: 4306: 2426: 2354: 2292: 2230: 176: 1532:, without a prior consultation how it is customarily done. I know you are meaning well, but you are creating too much damage. I spent an hour reverting the damage you've done to Vojvodina and Kosovo articles. There are many ways to improve these articles, but you choose exactly the wrong one. If you really want to be of help, you could, for example, update the village and town population figures ( 3827: 4162:- Agreed for the people. I think they should all be removed from the navboxes. But to have a navbox for each municipality seems OK. Some have more than 20 villages. And for consistency I would keep them. No time yet to work much on them. Now that the municipality pages itself seem to be complete, it would be time to rename all templates to "Template:<main page name: --> 2514: 1622:. If trying to work it out between the both of you has been failing so far, perhaps fresh eyes are needed. Do read through the info about when and how to use an RfC and consider whether you could try some other advice on that page, or whether taking it straight to an RfC is your best option (as I can only give you my personal opinion on the matter). Cheers! -- 2062:. I create related articles to clarify the situation. I create new articles for items that exist in several other European language Wikipedias. And the new articles are proposed for deletion, merging. Are boldly merged - and when I revert, I get templated with "Don't revert" and my editing stalked. Anyway, I leave the computer now. Best regards 3755:/ - No. If there was any Bold action, then where is the proper Revert in that cycle, before I got blocked? If anyone wants to consider my actions as Bold then what was followed was USERBLOCK and mass revert with the inclusion of reverting a lot of valid edits, rendering the pages as if a vandal ran through. 3686:

I agree. It seems clear to me that these renamings will gain consensus and be agreed. However, there is a process to go through. There is currently hardly any backlog, so it will only take a week. Making a nomination takes a little work, but all the re-categorising of articles will be done by a bot.

3186:

to document the issue. Your block and especially the accompanying message is completely out of line. There was no persistent disruption. You did not use the block to prevent harm, but you used it for punishment because I did not do what you personally thought I should do. This is abuse of your rights

741:

formatting (specifically, to make it match the software's default by bolding pages that had been changed since the last time you looked at them, and leaving other page titles in plain text, if you'd already looked at what the last editor had done; previously, this hadn't been possible due to the size

719:

I immediately went there to sign, but found no discussion or signing page. BTW, it could also be of help to improve the automated display of changes. E.g. if one adds a short string, the software could use that for an automated summary. So, if it is unwanted that users are forced to type, but the are

354:

Just a quick, personal hello as we've only talked in other venues until now. Hopefully, these will help to keep your energy levels up while you continue your hard work in cleaning up neglected areas of Knowledge. I'll pop by for a one to one chat, or you're welcome to stop by my page if you want kick

2418:

Judging by the fact that you're continuing your good work on Knowledge, I'm assuming that you've managed to get on top of your disenchantment. Tussles with other editors don't go away, but you do end up getting used to them and knowing how to behave and where to go for assistance when it is they who

1659:

I don't buy into any of the arguments countering your amendments and additions as being based on maintenance, et al, either. If any new categories prove to be redundant, they're easily deleted if articles aren't developed. Basically, it seems to boil down to a 'your stepping on my toes' disapproval.

1644:

are two fine articles for items in Montenegro. For those with merged content, as in Serbia and Kosovo, it is sometimes not clear where an information is related to. Population data is sometimes not labeled whether it belongs to the town or the municipality. So it is the other way around, the current

3601:

Fix them yourself. You did not use edit summaries to identify which edit had recategorised, so I rolled back all your latest edits. If you had reverted your own recategorisation, I would not have needed to take action; if you had used an edit summary to identify your recategorisation edits, I could

4715:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

3624:

I've reinstated certain changes to the Region pages, and taken them further, where there were other references to "province" or where the word "region" was already used within the article for a sub-area of the province. Please check in case I've missed any, as I wasn't looking for all these when I

3099:

before, and you can see I collected diffs. This could not have been done that fast. While collecting I found the new message that I had been blocked. I tried to save, which didn't work. So I stopped investing further time and put the copy to my talk. There is so much nonsense in Knowledge, you saw

2038:

Hi, Androoox. I understand that you are agitated, but posting a huge notice targeted at another contributor will not help your case. Could I suggest that you remove it? It will only serve to diminish your esteem in the eyes of administrators and editors watching what is going down between yourself

628:

Another suggestion I'd like to make is creating a user page. It doesn't need to be detailed, but even the fact that your user name appears as a red link makes people nervous, underlining the notion that you're an unknown quantity. The best thing is to look at a few pages others have made. You will

614:

leaving more edit summaries, but still omitting them on pages you haven't worked on before or are making fundamental changes to. Remember, regular contributors and editors don't really know who you are as yet. Until they get to know you, the unfortunate by-product of not leaving an edit comment is

3925:

What other term exists to name libel as what it is? Read what Hasteur wrote - he made a lot of claims without any source. And, why no-one asks the person that made the false claims to retract? Instead, the person that is target of libel, shall not state that it is libel. Anyway, I added a note to

3910:

Androoox, please read the relevant page pointed out by BrownHairedGirl. Written legal terms, whether you intended them as such or were acting out of indignation, are considered to be potentially genuine legal threats by the Knowledge community. Please don't do yourself, or others, a disservice by

3547:

If you had used edit summaries which identified the particular edits in which you had recategorised the pages, I could have reverted those edits. You had chosen not to do so, so rather than waste time trying to identify which of your edits had recategorised, instead I rolled back all your latest

692:

Knowledge is a collaborative environment in which all our work is constantly under scrutiny from others, and edit summaries are a very important part of making that scrutiny easy ... which is a critical factor in ensuring that any points of contention are discussed before they escalate into a big

3525:

OK. Thanks. And there are items that belong into the category, that is why CFD was not needed anymore. I am really unhappy with your revert tool usage, but I cannot prove it is vandalism, so I withdraw that. Sorry. But the result is the same, as if it had been done by a vandal. Making the set of

3033:

I don't know whether you are substantively right to want to change the name of the category; maybe you are, and I don't have any interest either way. As above, the reason for the block is having withdrawn a proposal from a community decision-making process, it is disruptive to proceed as if the

1480:

and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the

3662:

Androoox: You proposed a speedy rename of the category and it was objected to by an administrator and you withdrew the proposed speedy rename. At that point there was a consensus against the rename. You then decided to move forward as though you had established a speedy rename was appropriate

1512:

just gives more burden on maintenance and categorization, without an added value for the reader, to the shrinking pool of Serbian editors on En.wiki. This is a patently bad idea. Thus, I'm reverting your changes to villages of Beočin and Žitište. They were just fine in terms of organization, as

100:

or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our

1380: 3944:. It offers some advice, alternative methods of engaging in disputes when they get heated, etc. I'll read through some of Hasteur's comments when I get a moment as I'm logging of for the day. In the meantime, take a breath and calm down. We don't want you to suffer from 2086: 2889:

When I created the new category there was no need for the old to be depopulated and deleted. Because there were entities that fit there. That's what you seem not to understand. You didn't reply to the other two concerns raised, maybe you lack any backing here?

3226:

My unblock offer above still stands, if you want to take it. I'll repeat it: I will be happy to unblock you as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal. You will then be free to submit your proposed renaming of the category to a full

588:

Hi, Androoox. I still have your talk page on my watchlist just in case you encounter any difficulties. You're correct, it isn't a mandatory field. Under the circumstances, given that you've already been exposed to what happens in reality (as opposed to

1392: 2378: 2316: 2254: 1617:

is probably the best recourse in this instance as you're dealing with an experienced contributor who has made some reasonable points as to potential complications and data overload, but perhaps also has also developed an exaggerated sense of

3502:

I stand corrected. That evidence shows that you had begun to implement the category renaming while the speedy renaming proposal was still on the table, but stalled due to an objection. Slightly different, but still ignoring the process.

2841:

You failed to prove that it was out of process. There is no need for process to create a new category. You also failed to show that you are entitled to block me if I don't respond "promptly". And you did not define what "promptly" means.

4138:

only has one for a notable person, but I believe it would not be appropriate to put a location-related navbox template on a biography page, so there should not be a section for notable people in the navbox anyway. What do you think? –

1012:, and left a badly formatted mess in the article to boot, and I didn't appreciate your very correct reversion of my mistake". In his defense, there are hundreds of pages of "rules", and he probably just didn't know about this one. 2715: 92:

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

4536: 3415: 4090: 3159:

But what you are not entitled to do is to make a proposal at a consensus-forming process, then withdraw it and proceed as if the process had reached a consensus. My unblock offer above still stands, if you want to take it.

4488: 1596: 2042:

Better to keep a cool head and approach the correct venues for grievances with solid arguments as to what the problems have been. Remember, your life doesn't depend on making immediate changes. Cheers, my friend!

4440: 3292: 629:

get a few ideas and see how most people do it. There are no hard and fast rules, but remember: this is how other editors will form their opinion of you, other than seeing the edits you make. Have a look here too

3114:

You even go so far as to call my edits "persistent disruptive editing". - It was a fix in categorization. No, objections had been raised for one month. And CFD was not needed anymore, since there are provinces.

3992: 2610: 4178: 2606: 2076:

Sometimes it's best to just step away and calm down. It would be a pity if you were to give up on contributing, as you've done some great work already. I think we all have those kinds of days (or weeks!).

1376: 3926:

Hasteur's libel above, clarifying that I don't intend to sue in court. I really have other things to do. Thank you. And BHG has got the message already, so the WP policy cannot be applied to block me.

2129: 2312: 690:

Anyway, I'm glad you turned it on. I find that edit summaries rarely need to be verbose, except on contentious areas, and a brief summary is usually fine, while taking only a second or so to do.

3654: 633:. I hope you don't feel that I'm a busy-body, but I see that you're going to be a valuable asset and would like your Knowledge experience to be as smooth and stress free as possible. Cheers! -- 3687:

It's also handy to have a full debate on record, because it creates an audit trail – anyone can click "what links here" on the old category name and trace the rationale for the change. –

2907: 2650: 2374: 1508:

Please do not create additional articles about municipalities of Serbia. The existing town articles map to municipalities 1:1, most of them are too short and underdeveloped, and creating

538: 2658: 4662: 4131: 3056:

Androox, I will be happy to unblock you as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal. You will then be free to submit your proposed renaming of the category to a full

372:

The picture is nice, would like to eat this now ;-). Thank you. I hope English Knowledge gets a new boost. WikiData can help a lot for the settlement articles. Bots should import data.

1574:

I don't give a particular damn about them, but if you managed to make a mess out of Vojvodina ones, it is logical to presume you made it for Kosovo ones, too. In particular, you moved

3802: 3275:/ - I only would have seen the block warning if I went to the talk page. FTR - I created 4~5 articles, then immediately started writing a reply to your warning. BOOM, the BLOCK came. 2981: 2767: 2654: 4193: 3153:. As soon as you loaded any page, you would have seen a notice that you have messages, and thereby seen the block warning, and the warning about rollback. Instead you kept editing. 4007: 615:

that they're on their guard and are more likely to revert your edit. It shouldn't happen, but it does. You'll probably find yourself being just as wary within a couple of months!

4712: 4681: 4667: 4135: 593:

in theory), it might be a good idea to turn this feature on for a while... just until you get used to leaving edit summaries where they're really needed. (Note that it was also

129: 193:. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Knowledge: 4514: 4072: 3819: 2682: 2250: 3223:

Androox, by the time you were blocked, you had recategorised 13 articles, but the the set which were recategorising amounted to dozens; sorry if the distinction was unclear.

1760: 1660:

I have no doubt that you're capable of presenting a logical, well constructed argument for your case. Sleep on it, then consider the presentation on a fresh head. Cheers! --

745:

So we could start that discussion again, but I really think it would be a waste of your time. I believe there is an optional script that does some of your automated idea.

2449:

Who do you think you are, waltzing into an article and mass-deleting sourced information without the least attempt to get consensus? We don't work like that around here.

3544:

that if you did not revert your out-of-process category move, your edits would be rolled back. You chose not to do so, and chose to continue editing rather than replying.

3454:

you had claimed to have withdrawn a proposal to that effect, when it faced a procedural objection. You had been warned that this would happen, and chose not to respond. -

3204:

You did not address "persistent disruptive editing", "affecting dozens of articles". You did not address that I did stop. Still you keep up the block. You still block me.

2812:

That is a blatant end-run around the consensus-forming process. When a speedy change is rejected, that requires a full CFD discussion, not simply ignoring the objection.

2678: 4219: 1756: 720:

benefits from at least some summary, then maybe this can be done via software. E.g. now, I will type "reply", but software could detect that I replied and even to whom.

4081: 1409: 4466: 4244: 2578: 1293: 4032: 1945: 1301: 1229: 2146: 2009: 1825: 1728: 1053: 2178: 4250: 4038: 2366: 1157: 935: 833: 286: 4266: 1792: 1297: 1253: 1225: 1109: 788:

Unfortunately, community discussions on certain points have a tendency to turn into time consuming POV conflicts. Bearing in mind that features you'd imagine

4475: 2980:

Androox, you did not respond to the warning, and did not revert the changes, so I have blocked you. I will now rollback the changes you made to articles in

2106:

The funniest part is that I've become such a senile old dolt that I actually find dicky articles funny. LOL! I'm too old to care about being cool! Cheers! --

275: 244: 123: 2724: 2174: 3129:

You claimed "affecting dozens of articles" - there are 13 regions and one further article that I change the category of. "dozens" is blatant exaggeration.

1197: 1153: 1125: 685: 82: 64: 4262: 1788: 1277: 1249: 1205: 1181: 1133: 1105: 1085: 424:

with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

4616: 4120: 839: 3182:

Yes, I did create stubs for the entities that are called provinces on the statoids site. This was directly related to the issue. Then I started editing

2867:

Androox, you yourself had proven that. You nominated it at CFD/S, where there was an objection, but you proceeded to implement the renaming yourself. --

2634: 2563:

I proposed the above change. Anyway, if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there. Thanks.

2058:

Removed. But I am really questioning whether I will stay with editing. It is so stupid. I fix a year-long error in an article about a country that is a

851: 4731: 4197: 3671:. Attempting to bias other editors by putting pejorative section headers only reveals that you are not looking at this from a detached point of view. 2818:

Please confirm promptly that you will revert those changes and seek consensus, or I will block you for disruptive editing and rollback your changes. --

1980: 1973: 1498: 186: 1273: 1201: 1177: 1129: 1081: 4418: 2630: 1843: 847: 4557: 4003: 266: 3646: 4296: 3077: 3001: 2835: 2710: 1839: 4581: 4567: 2602: 2218: 1873: 1820: 1370: 1329: 948:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

159: 142:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

4509: 4410: 3962:

No burn out. Just reduced fun by admins that violate policies and other users claiming things about me that are not true. But more important:

881: 334: 4697: 4693: 4192:, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Knowledge accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the 2504: 1968: 387:

I'm looking forward to collaborating with you in some areas. You're fresh ideas, enthusiasm and intelligence in going to be a boon for us! --

3920: 3667:

debate as to if there was consensus. All of the problems you've faced in this "incident" stems from not following the "Discuss" portion of

3362: 2774: 2540: 2033: 929: 4172: 3775: 3718:

BrownHairedGirl (BHG) gave you a warning that the renaming was not supported by consensus and that if you continued, you could be blocked.

1555: 4549: 4501: 4453: 3905: 3879: 3701: 3619: 3565: 3535: 3520: 3497: 3471: 3284: 3266: 3248: 3196: 3177: 3051: 3018: 2899: 1713:

Thanks a lot. I hope to return to the topic soon, but it may take until next week. Sorry! Thank you for the text at the other talk page.

1694:

Damn, I composed a longish explanation yesterday here (after I calmed down), but apparently haven't clicked "save page". I'll redo it at

813: 712: 583: 569: 4153: 3595: 3436: 2052: 304: 4657: 4027: 2572: 1365: 779: 4461: 2557: 2028: 1722: 1608: 1591: 1569: 1043: 1021: 965: 758: 4562: 4276: 3976: 3957: 3935: 3725:

You either missed the notifications that your talk page had changed or elected to not heed the warning and continued to change pages.

2594: 2162: 2115: 2071: 1853: 1744: 1669: 1654: 1631: 1485:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request 1069: 945:

tools, as having some issues to fix. Kindly try to provide more content in your page and resolve issues that has been tagged. Thanks

861: 675: 642: 396: 314: 2526:

Androoox, I supported your proposed name change. There is an ongoing discussion for a name change (Turkish invasion of Cyprus -: -->

975:

I've noticed that you are reverting some other's edits yourself. Kindly avoid reverting and let other editors do their work. Thanks

300: 4375:, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may 4238: 2785: 2760: 1695: 1404: 999: 106: 3409: 3138: 3124: 2494: 2480: 2471: 734:

Yes, I agree with you. But it's very hard to get changes agreed to, especially if those changes might affect established editors.

729: 4125: 3385: 2583:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2151:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1733:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1058:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

984: 970: 233: 3027:

receiving the notice that you were being blocked. I have now rolled back your edits to the articles which you depopulated from

4663: 4637: 4144: 3692: 3637: 2527:

1974 Cyprus war). I thought the proposed name change may seem to reasonable to you as well. If so, I expect your support here:

1410: 1334: 222: 4269:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1846:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 854:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 688:

which sadly always gets rejected. I think that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, but the consensus disagrees :(

364: 307:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 86: 4272: 4022: 3900: 3859: 3838: 3744:/ - No. It is not. My writing was AFTER being blocked. As a side note: it is not even clear if the advice was correct at all. 3614: 3560: 3515: 3466: 3243: 3172: 3072: 3046: 2996: 2969: 2879: 2830: 2745: 2590: 2587:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2158: 2155:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1849: 1740: 1737:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1065: 1062:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 923: 857: 707: 564: 509: 485: 310: 2974: 2439: 4336: 2984:. Rollback is a blunt tool, so this will also revert changes which did not affect the categoristaion of those articles. -- 1707: 1522: 381: 3156:

You are quite entitled to you view that the recategorisation is an appropriate fix. You may be right about that; I dunno.

2815:

I have no idea which is the correct title, and no interest or involvement in it. However, I deplore the abuse of process.

519:"Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes." - I did that. 4701: 4388: 4354: 2954: 1898: 3814: 3371: 3346: 3337: 3320: 2807: 594: 4689: 3798: 3784: 3680: 3028: 2800: 2796: 2763: 2730: 2059: 1597:

Knowledge:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#User merging article for municipality with article for municipal seat

1533: 493: 339: 3584: 3864: 3217: 3109: 1005: 1944:, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, " 908: 534:

I posted the notice because a lot of your edits offered no edit summary at all, as shown by the checker I linked to.

514: 281: 118: 3888:, that sort of comment may still lead to you being blocked. I strongly suggest that you withdraw those comments. -- 3541: 2413: 886: 473:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

3835: 3398: 3396: 4641: 4348: 4211: 3602:

have reverted only that edit. It was your choice not to do so, and the consequences are of your own choosing. --

3351: 1983:, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted: 1454: 4342: 2408: 2347: 2285: 2141: 545: 3739:

That you cited the BotRequest change shows that you had read the advice I have there that there needed to be a

2858: 1929: 1503: 413: 190: 4360: 2804: 2476:

Sorry, with all the page name changes and redirecting, some old content appeared to be lost. I take it back.

2097:

page, as well as essays on what to do when Knowledge is making you miserable. Take a break/take a laugh break.

1963: 105:

for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see

4249:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

4065: 2792: 2304: 1830:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

838:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

528: 291:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

217: 2884: 2750: 2377:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2315:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2253:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

3479: 3301: 3183: 2930: 2674: 1540: 1430: 942: 207: 136: 2453: 1752: 1582:

out of the blue. I really can't spend too much time separating a rare grain from a lot of chaff you made.

4629: 4585: 4563: 4376: 3941: 3885: 3424: 2938: 1969: 1689: 236:

using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

4717: 4633: 4150: 3844: 3732:

BHG then implemented a block to prevent you from (temporarily disrupting) the encyclopedia any further.

3698: 3643: 1913: 1482: 1462: 164: 63: 3749:

All of the problems you've faced in this "incident" stems from not following the "Discuss" portion of

4314: 4018: 3896: 3855: 3628:

By the way, this goes to show that it is worth making the effort to leave edit summaries. If you use

3610: 3556: 3511: 3462: 3239: 3168: 3068: 3042: 2992: 2965: 2921: 2875: 2826: 2741: 1941: 1891: 1884: 1477: 1446: 1414: 703: 560: 505: 481: 1579: 1457:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

496:

to check how often you are using edit summaries. Ideally, it should show 100% use of edit summaries.

4523: 4371: 4330: 3060:

discussion, where I am surethat it will be supported if you present the evidence to justify it. --

2584: 2152: 1734: 1637: 1437: 1059: 3484:

12:21, 12 February 2014‎ Androoox (talk | contribs)‎ . . (227 bytes) (-451)‎ . . (withdraw) (undo)

3231:

discussion, where I am surethat it will be supported if you present the evidence to justify it. --

4653: 4527: 4479: 4431: 4321: 4189: 3794: 3293: 3254: 2568: 2536: 2123: 1918: 1466: 892: 431: 97: 1530:

please do not move, reorganize, split, or otherwise change the organization of existing articles

1481:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

4114: 2934: 1703: 1587: 1551: 1518: 1494: 1400: 1221: 1017: 754: 202: 197: 4598:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

3150: 1453:, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see 1445:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

38:

Hello, Androoox, and welcome to Knowledge! Thank you for helping us build a great 💕. We have

4215: 4159: 4140: 3953: 3916: 3688: 3633: 3367: 3146: 2435: 2223: 2170: 2111: 2048: 1665: 1627: 1357: 809: 638: 436: 392: 360: 240: 1513:

witnessed by the previous 10 years of so of their existence. Thanks for your understanding.

1149: 4099: 4057: 4011: 3945: 3889: 3848: 3756: 3603: 3580: 3549: 3504: 3455: 3417: 3232: 3205: 3161: 3061: 3035: 3006: 2985: 2958: 2868: 2846: 2819: 2734: 2717: 2404: 2343: 2281: 2090: 1933: 1784: 1458: 1352:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

1245: 1101: 696: 659: 630: 553: 498: 474: 456: 402: 102: 87:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Economic_territory

54: 46:

and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the

2089:. It can also help to read some of the humorous essays on the subject of taking Knowledge 1987: 1979:

Hello, Androoox. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

8: 4645: 4325: 4207: 980: 961: 949: 775: 441: 296: 248: 229: 155: 143: 114: 47: 3793:- FTR: I was not interested in Deletion, Merging nor Renaming, when I recategorized the 4649: 3760: 3447: 3273:

you would have seen a notice that you have messages, and thereby seen the block warning

2791:

That means that you were withdrawing the proposal. However, instead of doing that you

2564: 2532: 2137: 2024: 2016: 1269: 1173: 1077: 953: 147: 684:

Hi Androox, the idea of turning on the require-edit-summaries feature by default is a

189:, Androoox. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for 4612: 4292: 4283: