User talk:Unibond

Hello, Unibond. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Gasoline, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit on the article Monotheism. If you feel that the articles Monotheist (band) and Monotheist (album) are not notable then please nominate them for deletion. Tassedethe (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you explain this edit? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep undoing my work? And without any explanation at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfarren23 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sangster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Unibond. Have you actually read my argument, given in the section Summary of the name issue on the talk page, that the De Witt spelling is historically correct? What do you find wrong with this argument? I sincerely hope that you don't think that the mass of evidence I gave can be overridden by a few images, showing the he didn't lift his pen when signing his name. That makes absolutely no sense. Eleuther (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Unibond. You left a message under the title "De Witt" on my talk page. I assume this was intended to be a reply to the above message from me, so I will take the liberty of reproducing it here:

• "Both signatures so far found had no space in them, where are the counter examples ? Unibond (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)"

The counterexamples are given in the section Summary of the name issue on the article's talk page. May I ask for a second time, have you read this section? What do you find wrong with it? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk section only refers to 2 signatures and both have no space in them Unibond (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take this to mean that you don't intend to respond to my question about the Summary of the name issue section, perhaps because you have reading difficulties, or just because you are functioning as a troll here. Eleuther (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the name issue contains no primary evidence just a collection of variant printed spellings, all the primary evidence ie his signatures so far presented contain no space Unibond (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are you establishing a new standard now, that the "primary evidence" for a Wikipedia article must be hand-written? That would be a bit of a revolution. I think, instead, that you are functioning more like a troll here, i.e., that you are creating contention just to make yourself feel important, and because you like yelling. Such contributions are not welcome. Eleuther (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is not controversial to say that in the spelling of a name the person's signature is a primary source and a printed document a secondary source Unibond (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous idea. The correct spelling of my name is found on my birth certificate and in my school records and so forth. My signature is a scrawl. Are you saying we should look at your example and refer to this governor in the future as "DeMu Chuln" or something like that? Ridiculous. Eleuther (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am saying exactly that, there are plenty of examples of misspellings in newspapers, on birth certificates, passports etc. The fact is on both signatures we have so far he has spelled his own name without the space. Unibond (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Please go edit the article to say that his name should be spelled as "DeMu Chuln", and see how far that will getcha. Idiot. Eleuther (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

The article Stasys Kalvaitis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass

WP:MUSICBIO

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) . Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unibond_reported_by_User:Hipal_(Result:_). Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Unibond. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you again restore the word 'fraudster' to the article unless you obtain a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed,

sorry but I am really confused, since was convicted in a court of fraud doesn't that make him a fraudster ? 86.168.70.20 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hieronymus Schlick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hieronymus Schlick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]