User talk:Rehnn83

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American football teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlisle. 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) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not say anything else about this I have removed my words not yours and everytime you undo it I will remove them again 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You but please do not edit an archived talk-page. The comments are kept their for the record Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you but which part oif the first bit did you not understand , MY WORDS I have removed 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen to keep the full conversation as a record of why I acted and what I said. -- --Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I accept that you were right , I want the discussion removed 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments but as I've explained I want to keep the full conversation as it shows the full record. Please stop reverting it. --Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I want to take this to arbitration , I do not know how and as you are one of the staff could you tell me please how to do it 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my request to not edit an archived talk page you have done so! I have already reported you to the administration. I'm not a member of staff or employee of Wikipedia - just someone who follows the rules Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SO you have the advantage over me you know how to report I don't. 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:Rehnn83, but rather a neutral party who has stumbled across this through Huggle. Although anyone is welcome to report things on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Rehnn83 is likely in the right here because it is their user talk space which they can do with as they wish. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R. Thanks for your efforts here at WikiP. I wanted to let you know that when opening a thread at AN or AN/I you are supposed to notify the IP or user about that thread. I went ahead and made a post on the IPs talk page. I am sorry that you are having to put up with this editing of your talk page archives. In spite of this have a good week on WikiP and especially off! MarnetteD|Talk 23:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marnette - I obviously over looked that when posting the report Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There are so many things to learn around here. I'll have been editing here 10 years next March and I am still finding out stuff. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were a member of the association. But I do now. You know, that I was telling the truth and yet you still argued with me Lmao. How petty of you. I accept that what I put, I put it in the wrong place , having had it explained to me by another editor. However you should live up to the associations motto and have admitted you knew I was telling the truth and then explained why I shouldn't have put it were I did. I would have accepted that. And you also know it isn't possibly libelous as it is a fact. 86.152.18.72 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained multiple times why you shouldn't have put it were you did. You been asked to do three things and you've done none of them:

1. Demonstrate
   relevanance
   !
2. Demonstrate
   verifiability with reliable sources
   .
3. Adhere to the policy on
   Biographies of living persons
   .

Wikipedia is not

not an indiscriminate collection of information

. A direct quote from that last article I've linked to states:

"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"

Wikipedia is not the place to

import personal conflicts. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you as you appear unable or unwilling to follow some basic principles and rules or make meaninful and appropiate comments. Thank You and Good Night. Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Rehnn83 - please be careful with your statements. While the IP's repeated taunting here is bordering on

WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Barek thank you the civility check I'll edit it to make it more appropriate Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted my edit on Strava? This was good and accurate information, and i added all relevant sources into "external links" section (i do not know how to use source tag, this is very difficult to use for casual editors, if you think this is needed - please do it yourself). This information is also not spam, and I'm in no way associated with Strava. I'm an Open Street Map editor, and this is why i know.

I also think, that you should not delete valuable contributions without trying to reach an author first. If you think i can improve this contribution please let me know. But please do not delete it. I can work on it more, i can use your help, but having your work see vanishing just like that makes me not willing to contribute to the project anymore. I will reintroduce the changes once more, please help me by improving this article, but not by deleting my work. All the best and lots of wiki love Rekrutacja (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added was unsourced, and appeared to be

Original Research I see that when you've now added it back you have now included references. Thanks for doing this. Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks - I agree it can sometimes be difficult to add references correctly. Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rehn83 - I just got your message about the conflict of interest username. Not clear to me: how can I request a change of username? From where? Many thanks

Hi, once you've read the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username you can request a change of name at either Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple or Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Personally, I've never changed my username however after a quick scan through the instruction I would think the simple method is more appropriate. But I'd suggest you read through both sets of instructions to make sure.

Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my link to Bracmat. I can think of several reasons (that Bracmat GitHub page is created by me, Bracmat is not notable, the Bracmat page makes claims that can be interpreted as advertisement, the term 'non linear patter' is not explained), but I don't know which is the true cause. When seeing the external link to the EasyPattern language I thought I would be on safe ground adding my link.

There have been many successful attempts at creating Pattern Matching languages, all of which likely occupy not so big niches. No notable programming languages, however, support a combinaton of pattern matching on tree structures with non-linear patterns. The only exception is maybe Tom, to which I added the category 'Pattern matching programming languages' lately. So as a group, these niche occupying Pattern Matching languages are notable, but how do you write an Wikipedia article about the collection of those Pattern Matching languages if you cannot mention any of the unnotable programming languages? By the way, a recent twig on the tree of Pattern Matching languages is Egison, which also probably isn't allowed any mentioning in Wikipedia. Is there any way in which Wikipedia can inform about these developments? Cheers.BartJong (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not the tool for this

.

Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to understand why a link to the oldest and most widely circulation in the worldwide brass band marketplace's website is inappropriate, especially given that two of its competitors still have links there. Furthermore, one of these is clearly a link to broken website. Please explain! — Preceding

Wikipedia is not for self promotion. I shall review the other links on the page. Rehnn83 ^Talk 10:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Forward pass may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• moving forward it is a forward pass, regardless of where the ball lands or is first touched.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncaa.org/championships/playing-rules/football-rules-game |title=Football
• rules-game |title=Football Rules of the Game |publisher=NCAA |accessdate=7 January 2015}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, Regarding yesterday's edit reversion at the cyclocross page, I would like your opinion on whether it is appropriate to include the statement (or a similar one) if I add citations to a selection of newspaper articles and print books? Thank you, in advance, for your answer. Laatu (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Laatu[reply]

"(cur | prev) 10:22, 13 January 2015‎ Rehnn83 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,021 bytes) (-102)‎ . . (Undid revision 642255874 by Laatu (talk) This addition appears to consitute original research) (undo | thank)"

I think if you provide a reference then it's a valid statement. I removed it because, I race cross and I've never seen or heard it compared to a steeplechase so I believed it to be original research. However if you find a citation then adding the statement (or something similar) is entirely appropriate Rehnn83 ^Talk 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. It's nice to work work with a fellow cx racer, Laatu (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Laatu[reply]

Sorry, but the article is different. I've taken it back to AfD. To be honest, I got fed up of seeing it waiting to be dealt with. I'm not a sports fan of any sort. I understand cricket (and I don't understand cricket even though I have played it), better than American football, which always seems like a cross between chess, cryptography and maths to me, with an occasional bit of violence. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon Thanks Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rehnn83. 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

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]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards,

Hello, Rehnn83. 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

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]

Hello, Rehnn83. 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

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]