User talk:Mondolkiri1

Welcome!

Hello, Mondolkiri1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page TAP Portugal destinations have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!  Jetstreamer Talk 10:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TAP Portugal destinations

If you only took the time to read the edit summaries in the history of the page you will notice that I already offered an explanation on the reasons for not using flags in airline destination articles. Given that you keep insisting on this, I'll put it clearer here. Consensus was gained not long ago for the layout of tables in airline destination articles, and flags have been avoided. They can be found at here. I strongly suggest you to read them. Furthermore, do take a look at MOS:FLAGS. I also replied to your comments at my talk page, where I think I made myself perfectly clear that I take this project seriously. I assume you did not read it too.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mondolkiri1. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jetstreamer Talk 12:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Mondolkiri1, There is no statement that says involvement of Right Sector. There is a statement that says that there was a visit card of Right Sector and that is all. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't me that added the Right Sector again, this time. Previously I just reverted to the inclusion of the Right Sector (references) Denied by the Right Sector (reference). This time, though the reference seems to be from a more reliable source, so I didn't to anything. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TK Destinations World Map

Hi, first of all thanks for the map that you have prepared. Bu I have some objections; it really doesn't make sense to show Fezzan, Crimea and Syria on the map that you have prepared. If TK completely terminates flights to Sebha, this time, do you paint this region "Fezzan" into white color or blue? Btw, your map includes the regions, not the destination points. With this same Logic, i need to ask the colors of the following regions; Alaska, Hawaii, British Columbia, Wales, Northern Ireland, Sardinia, Corsica, Bretagne, Asturias, Baleares, Canarias, Açores, Scania, Crete, Wallonia, Chechnia, Dagestan, Yakutstan, Sinkiang.... You see sky's the limit. This time, you have to paint these "Regions" into white, since TK doesn't fly yet.. :) Thanks & Regards, ushuaia1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushuaia1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TAM Airlines destinations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraná (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image

You recently uploaded File:A day that will live in infamy - Odessa citizens were savagely killed.JPG. This image, however, isn't free. We can only use free images on Wikipedia, and not copyrighted ones. You also provided no attribution, which is unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mondolkiri1. You have new messages at RGloucester's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Turkish Airlines destinations 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:
  • {|class="wikitable sortable toccolours"
  • |[[Donetsk]]{{#tag:ref|Suspended till {{Date|2014-6-1}}||Ukraine||align=center|DOK||align=center|UKCC||[[Donetsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Unity

Mondolkiri1, I surprised that you are denying the fact of Russian Unity involvement in the separatist movement in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced article stated that "the Court acknowledged that the signing of the agreement by Aksenov to join the Crimea to Russia are evidence of encroachment on the territorial integrity of Ukraine". The wikipedia article mentioned annexation of Crimea, so the relation to the Russian Unity is more that clear. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to say before you edited again, of course I'm not denying the involvement of Russian Unity. I requested a citation which I then corrected, because, as I said in the correction, obviously Russian Unity is involved. But Russian Unity is one party, Russian Bloc is another. Aksyonov belongs to Russian Unity, not Russian Bloc.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkish Airlines destinations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines destinations

This edit added links to countries, partially reverting a former edit by Ohconfucius that removed them in accordance with MOS:LINK guidelines. Please remove them.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the links.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EU Parliament 2014 elections

No, we're still waiting for the results of some 20 sections from abroad. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 09:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Because of the comments made here: [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I do appreciate it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit

Any reason why you chose to place this here? It is a bit of a rambling set of random questions that don't really have much to do with the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in a sequence of a discussion of a discussion in the "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" article talk page, so I think it was a logical edit.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)
I looked at the article and the guy is only mentioned once in the article under the bounty section. Which past discussion was it about? I am jus trying to figure out how these questions would fit here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Namely Yulia Romero in the proper article (I don't know if anyone else). (I'm uusing using Lisbon Time now since I've noticed that in the "Deutsch Wikipedia they use the Berliner Stund, sorry for the Germans, but they have harmed a lot my country too much, along with a lot with other countries in Europe) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)
I would talk to User:Yulia Romero about it then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, Yulia Romero actually said that the fact that either if this billionaire is Ukrainian-Israeli or not is not relevant. But if you wish to discuss that with her, be free. It's not my responsability.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)

Insulting IP vandal

I know about his comments. He has been doing the same thing to me and a bunch of other editors over at the article 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. I have made a request for temporary semi-protection of both articles. EkoGraf (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines destinations

Hi Mondolkiri1, first of all thank you for your work! But there's one author in the German wiki which has a problem with your map. Could you please explain why you divided Ukraine into different area? I appreciate your help! --MBurch (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 insurgency in Donbass

Can he adapt to this pattern in the topic 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine?--Baba Mica (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author of that map. Talk directly to the author of the map, so he can update it.Baba Mica --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2014
I'm working on the map.Baba Mica --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014

Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine.

I have recently undid a revision you made about a part of the article being rumor. The article was reliably sourced and was not rumor. Further more I have been unable to find any "talk" between you and this other user. Do not undo things because you disagree with them or because of another user, you do them because of Wikipedia's rules. If you wish to discuss this further than please make a section in the talk page, and link me on it. Avion365 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
In appreciation of your quick growth as an editor able to enter into all articles related to the recent events in Eastern Europe and contribute with diligence, recognise, discuss and diffuse POV objectives, and remain good natured, civil and neutral under extreme pressure. We all have our moments of slipping under such pressure, but your good work and open attitude to the learning curve has not gone unnoticed! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Thank you so much for your kind words of appreciation and your barnsar! I hope I'll continue to deserve them and I'll do my best! Warm regards from Portugal.--Mondolkiri1(Talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you very much for your complements and the barnstar! I will try and continue the work on Wikipedia the same way! Regards! :) EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish presidential election results by province - maps (French Wikipedia)

Hi. I'm glad you like the updated versions of your maps. Thanks for thinking up the idea to make them in the first place. I have fixed the maps on the French wikipedia as you requested, by adding the templates Stack begin and Stack end to it. If you have any more ideas about how we can make the election article (in either French or English wikipedia) better, then please don't hesistate!

I would like to ask you one thing. On the English version of the election article (Turkish presidential election, 2014) you will see that in the infobox, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu is coloured blue in the table and the map. Do you think that blue or red is more appropriate for İhsanoğlu? You can also have a look on the talk page to see the arguments in favour of red and blue. Could you offer your opinion on this talk page so that we can reach consensus and decide which colour to use? Thanks. T.C. Ataturkiye (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SVG

Demat / Bom dia !

I just wanted to tell you that basic modifications of svg files are very easy with Inkscape :

Most areas are made of dots connected by segments or curves.

These dots appear when you choose the "edit dots" button of the left margin and when you click on some area to modify it.

You can add a dot by double-clicking on a line between two of these points, and you can move a dot with the mouse.

You should try :) Ec.Domnowall (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar in honour of your contributions!

Ukrainian Barnstar
Your efforts to work collaboratively with other editors at articles related to the War in Donbass and the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine have helped to resolve many disputes. Please continue to do what you do, and perhaps we will be able to get through this crisis with articles that make sense and are informative. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester:Thank you very much for the honor and for your compliments! I'm looking forward to keep working on these subjects and to do the best I can! It's a team work, and I think we have a good team!Mondolkiri1 — talk 07:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid an edit you made, saying that it was POV in the edit summary. I apologize for the POV remark. I should have looked more closely at your other edits, and noticed that RGloucester commended you, before I made that allegation. But I really don't understand why you replaced the scare quotes around "volunteers". As far as I know, all of the stories about Russian soldiers being ordered to fight in Ukraine go back to a single source, an NGO whose claims must be treated with suspicion, given that it receives USAID funding. In any case, as I said in my edit summary, even if some Russian soldiers are ordered to the Ukraine, even Western sources do not deny that most Russian citizens fighting in the Ukraine are there voluntarily. Again, no need for scare quotes. – Herzen (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are a leftist, support Kosovo independence, and support Tibetan independence. So why do you not support Novorossian independence? Instead you support Petro Poroshenko who heads a fascist regime, and uses heavy artillery and areal bombardment against his own people, which is a war crime and constitutes mass murder. – Herzen (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added Petro Poroshenko after the Minsk Protocol, which hasn't been holding unfortunately, and I won't be discussing here who first broke the truce. Concerning to Novorossiyan independence, a proper referendum would have to be held, since the ones on 11 May were carried out under very awkward circumstances: 1st - they were not verified by any international observers and 2nd - they were carried only in the region under control of LPR and DPR. I'll not remove Petro Poroshenko from my User page, since he's not responsible for all the Ukrainian actions that are taking place and there are still a lot of radical right-wingers in the government and the parliament. And there are radical right-wingers fighting on the other side as well, even from Serbia (Chetniks).Mondolkiri1 — talk 15:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't suggesting that you should remove Poroshenko. As for the DPR and LPR independence referendums, a few newspapers got together to do an informal poll on the day of the referendum and before it, and the poll result was consistent with the referendum result. (This was reported by the FAZ. I added that to the relevant article; don't know if it's still there.) So the idea that the people of the DPR and LPR did not clearly express their desire to leave Ukraine is nothing but a Western myth. Who would want to stay, after the three atrocities committed by the junta discussed at the link I gave above? – Herzen (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barroso comments

Hey, I get that politicians can be infuriating at times, but you could please redact the more personal remarks about Barroso? BLP policy still applies to talk pages.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you agree, that's fine for me! I wouldn't mind myself to add it in the Vladimir Putin's quotes in his own article, that phrase, then!Mondolkiri1 — talk 22:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox

I don't intend to edit war this out. The Russian intervention started during the Crimean crisis and it doesn't matter if it's still ongoing or not. In case you didn't notice I've bolded it and kept it out of the Crimea brackets to highlight that it's a different aspect of the conflict. The fact that it's ongoing is no valid argument either (the start date is what matters) because some battles in the Donbass war are still ongoing (e.g. Battle of Horlivka) but they are not at the end of the list. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Finally, please self-revert and don't ignore the discussion, because I have no intention to report anyone or to request for page protection. Thanks, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian emigrants to Portugal

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Ukrainian emigrants to Portugal, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ukrainian immigration to Portugal. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurosceptic representation in EuroParliament

Thanks for your corrections. I am unfamiliar with European politics. I took my original numbers from the colour-bar chart under "Results" in Elections to the European Parliament: 98=38+60. I hope that these numbers in various WP articles can be reconciled. If you respond, please do so in Talk:International reactions to the war in Donbass. Layzeeboi (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paramilitaries

I linked the article on Territorial defence battalion (Ukraine), instead of listing all individual battalions, because it provides a list and an explanation. This greatly condensed the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Oh, OK! Sorry, I had not noticed that.Mondolkiri1 — talk 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East of Svitlodarsk

Wrt File:East Ukraine conflict.svg, the area east of svitlodarsk is under control of rebels according to ukraine military. https://twitter.com/NSDC_ua/status/515068255049093120 Obviously east of Svitlodarsk includes Luhans'ke. Please change the colour of Luhans'ke to red. That is important because it shows debalsteve is under seige, and it was the case for more than a week according to NSDC. Lotsaprob (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to that file it's not clear that Debaltseve is under siege either, because it displays the area of Luhanske under rebel control, but the area to the West of Svitlodarsk doesn't seem there to be shown under rebel control. Either I choose one source or another, and the http://militarymaps.info/ seems to me more accurate and I also follow Hanibal911 recommendation by now, concerning to the fact that tweet sources may not be very reliable.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lotsaprob I thought about creating a violet colour for Luhanske ("unclear situation"), but that would open a pandora box of edit warring about the file, so I thought it was better to let it stay like it is now, until further developments.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. But the source is valid because it is quoted by enemy, who have conflict of interest not to show. No military would show better position than ground for the enemy. It shows main roadway is blocked, though the image says it is not a seige via a non-roadway path. It was the situation for more than a week, so i thought it would be better to update. I was unable to edit using inkspace, if png i would have updated. Lotsaprob (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euroscepticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Podemos. 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) 09:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk airport battle

I'll check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Thanks a lot!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mondolkiri1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Checking in to see how you're doing

Hi! Thought I'd drop you a message to remind you that I admire your capacity to maintain neutrality and a cool head with all the 'stuff' going on in the Ukraine related current affairs articles. Let me know if you get canvassed or feel that you're being pushed by anyone.

You know you're always welcome to drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy Thank you so much, Iryna. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed here by the POV that runs in these articles. Honestly, I think that the people of Donbass are being played in a very nasty game by all sides. A lot of editors, rather than having in mind what are the real interests of people there, edit to protect their favourite countries' reputations.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it can be infuriating and frustrating. For the moment, I try to stay away from these articles other than trying to keep some form of balance against POV pushes. I think that's the only thing to be done until we have some serious scholarly analysis for tidying up the content. The articles will need to be tidied up at such a later point in time, but the attempts to rewrite them according to POV at the moment are bound to attract editors who haven't been involved in the development of these articles, and whose ideas have nothing to do with neutrality. For me, it feels as if the vultures have come in to pick over the carrion for the bits they want.
Never mind. We have the capacity to rise above that of interest groups and, in the end, we'll still be around to ensure that the integrity of the information in these articles represents the core of the issues for those who are actually involved are represented as faithfully as we can, adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stay strong and don't let the short-term problems get you down too much. The final word will be down to the editors whose interests are not vested in pronouncing who the 'good guys' are and who the 'bad guys' are, but in the true issues at stake. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Euroscepticism 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:
  • [[File:Alexis Tsipras die 16 Ianuarii 2012.jpg|thumb|Alexis Tsipras, leader of SYRIZA, winner of of [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct it.Mondolkiri1. (talk) 06:34 24 October 2014 (Lisbon/London/Dublin/Casablanca Time)

...people displaced people...

[number of people displaced people...] — seems incorrect, and ...the number of people displaced from... or ...the number of displaced people from... seems better ... --Q Valda (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q Valda It wasn't me who edited it in the 1st place, and I'm not a native English speaker. I'd suggest that you'd clarify it with RGloucester. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The extra "people" in "the number of people displaced people" was wrong. Either of the formations mentioned by Q Valda is acceptable. I personally favour "the number of people displaced from Donbass", as this is a more natural way of saying things. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up on MoS

Regarding this edit to "War in Donbass", per WP:DATERANGE, from 12–25 September is correct. It's understood as being inclusive. Unless there has been a break in the period of time over which something occurred, it's a far simpler way of denoting the period than writing it out in full. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you give your opinion?

Hi, I'd been reported for breaking 3RR, but in reality the issue is that the usual lobby of pro-ukrainian editors who always blocked any other user attempt to edit differently from their own POV. I would be glad if you give your opinion there. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mondolkiri1. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donbass general elections, 2014

Hi, what exactly are you disputing in[2]?

  • That Anton Shekhovtsov is a researcher on extremist movements in Eastern Europe? But this is how he describes himself.
  • That "Michel and Piskorski are known for their extremist far right politics". But this is exactly how they are described in their own articles: Luc Michel and Mateusz Piskorski.

These are the only occurences of the word "extremist" in the paragraph you deleted. Also, if you don't like the wording, the correct way of fixing this is to remove the single word, not the whole paragraph. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kravietz My issue is not about the political positions of either Luc Michel or Mateusz Piskorski, who have political positions that I completely despise. At least make a short article about Anton Shekhovtsov. With this researcher I have no issues at all, as long as I have enough information about him. Concerning to the unsourced text in the article, I consider that it's a serious enough issue to postpone it, until there are reliable (or so-called reliable) sources about it. There were very reliable anglo-saxonic sources saying that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq until 2003! I'll consider (myself, not for the article, since I've already realised that the English Wikipedia is a circus) a source reliable enough if it's from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, even the Catholic Church or any other organization that doesn't have a geopolitical interest in Ukraine. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what exactly is unsourced? The paragraph has a clearly stated source so I just don't understand this claim. The Interpreter Magazine is linked in many articles and was never disputed as unreliable. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kravietz What's unsourced? Is that organization had anything to do with the Donbass elections! Good bye! I'll only dedicate to aviation and Portuguese issues, if you allow me, of course! If not... So be it! I don't fucking care more about Ukraine or Russia. But I'll continue to care about the people in Donbass, through other means, as I said.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Interpreter Magazine is tracking events in the Ukraine from the very beginning and is covering them in very detailed way, mostly basing on Russian language sources. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in that source from the Interpretermag to support what I had corrected. But as I said, this issue about Eastern Europe, in Wikipedia, for me is over.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kravietz, Shekhovtsov's cited articles (not blog rants) have been used elsewhere where there have been other academic articles by other scholars attesting to a position (i.e., that a certain high profile political figure is deemed to be a right-wing extremist, not for potential WP:BLP violations where numerous political figures are being characterised in an extremely POV light based on one person's opinions). Personally, I've been checking to see whether he has been used as an 'expert' by a number of sources, and he has not. If you check the Interpretermag 'article', it's a verbatim reproduction of his blog and is attributed to him. Interpretermag does not commit to any commentary on the blog they've reproduced. I'm going to do my utmost to eliminate it (including the WP:UNDUE descriptions of those invited to attend/oversee the elections as if the majority of them understood it to be anything other than a fiasco). At best, their names can be mentioned with links to their bios (where they exist in English Wikipedia). Dedicating a section to them was a WP:TROJAN for leading the reader to throw their hands in the air and shout, "I knew it was a conspiracy!" (see WP:WORDS for why this is not acceptable).

At the moment, I'm bogged down in so many battleground articles that the clean up process is going to be a long and arduous one... but one that will be attended to. By that stage, Shekhovtsov's being recognised as a leading 'expert' will have either played out as being a responsible, neutral depiction of his importance, or will have been confirmed to be WP:CHERRY. The only thing verifiable at this point is that he is an academic in the field of European politics. Misrepresenting how much his opinions are valued by his peers is not on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for that reflection Iryna Harpy. By the way, now there is a citation from Interpretermag about what had been written, but there wasn't any when I deleted the paragraph. Now, if the Interpretermag article is in fact a verbatim reproduction of Shekhovtsov's blog, then, the editors here are in fact taking a blog as a reliable source (if that's the case).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-opened the discussion on the article talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That section needs to go. It is totally WP:UNDUE, in line with your concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy You forgot to sign your contribution in the Talk Page. Maybe the entire section should be deleted instead of turning it into a battleground, though it's not my favourite option. Can anyone summarize it in a neutral way? I doubt that the existence of this section, as summarized as it may be is able to be neutral. I agree completely that the choice of most or at least of a large part of the observers was awful, like including members of Jobbik, the Belgian National Bolshevik movement, FPÖ, the "Attack" from Bulgaria or Front National. The participation of the Communist Greeks is also controversial (I honestly hope they're not Stalinists!), but there were also members of the anti-Putin Social Democratic Party of Russia (A Just Russia), the pro-European Serbian Progressive Party, Forza Italia and of a series of European regionalist parties and of non-extremist Eurosceptic parties. Concerning to the paragraph that I had deleted, I already explained. And it seems I was right, at least at that time, since only several days later any citation was provided. It looks like someone wanted to insert that paragraph there and was desperately searching for any source to prove his or her point. I compare the inclusion of Shekhovtsov's statements to the previously controversial inclusion of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in the article about the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Well, maybe it's even worse, since the later one at least is a group of people that have some credentials, while apparently Shekhovtsov is a very obscure person, that almost noone knows.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War in Donbass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party. 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) 11:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I edited because it's headed by John McCain, and because of its name. Maybe it was not enough information for me to write that it was actually directed by the Republican Party of USA, but I suppose in a way it is (it may be like Fox News or MSNBC - not official party sponsers but everyone that is informed enough know which party each of those broadcaster support). Considering to the disambiguation itself, I may correct it, but now I'm not sure if "Republican Party" should be mentioned at all, since I may not have enough information. So, I won't do anything. Correct it, delete it, corroborate (I hope this word exists in English) it, .... Whatever! Do what you think is the most adequate. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17
16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Free Donbass

Hi, could you contest the proposed deletion of the Free Donbass article? I cannot do it as I had been topic banned for 6 months. It seems that the pro-Kiev regime Wikipedia lobby (you know what group of users Im talking about) are trying to make their agit-prop more evident, as well as erase any info or article they dont like. Their ridiculous claim is that one of the two only parties that took part on the Donetsk elections is not "notable", could you believe it?. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria

There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SantiLak OK, it's an issue about which I'm almost only merely interested... unlike the War in Donbass... and 1 war is already hard for me to carry, now another one, I may try, but I can't promise anything. I don't any arabic, Turkish or Kurdish background. The only thing I have is a humanist background! If may be interested about removing some accusations that have been directed against either for being "pro-Russian" or for being "pro-Western"... it might eventually be positive for me, but as I was saying to a Ukrainian friend, as a kid my father told me about the Yugoslav people (he is a retired shipping agent: BIG PROBLEM! And the same now applies to Russia vs Ukraine, ISIS vs everyone on Earth... yeah ok, if it's about ISIS I have to agree). But I may have sometimes some furious attacks, pardon me from that if I can positively contribute, but you were now warned. Concerning to my relgion if it's relevant about this topic I'm a very convinced agnostic (an apparent contradiction but it's what I am). Mondolkiri1(talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacting you generally along with many other users because you contributed in a discussion on the page before. - SantiLak (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did and maybe it's actually a better page to edit, since unlike the War in Donbass, everyone seems to be anti-ISIS. OK, from today on I move from Donbass to ISIS territory, but I warn, I'll support the Kurds (no matter what Turkey says, though I've have had good Turk Turkish friends, and I contributed about the Turkish presidential elections... Well, I guess that a plus from me! I'm going edit in ISIS pages instead of Ukraine| And I'll be as objective as possible, and I'll repudiate any anti-Turkish, anti-Iranian or anti-Ababic editor as I have the possibility to be. I'm now in Kobane! Count with me! Mondolkiri1(talk) 00:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the ISIL article

New and independent inputs are very welcome. There are a number of articles but I don't have any specific ideas to push and think it may fairer for you to to independently find your way. Thanks for your involvement. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye I'm prividedged and very humbly thankful for being invited to edit about ISIL (or ISIS). After having watched the plight of the Kurds, Christians, Yazidis and (maybe not so well known, but also the Shiites) I consider this invitation as a priviledge. And, after watching the nasty geopolitical games about the War in Donbass (in Wikipedia, actually!) I think it's far better rewarding for me to edit about ISIL than about Eastern Ukraine, I must confess. I'll do my best. Mondolkiri1 talk 06:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Mondolkiri1, I've blocked you again. It seems like you haven't learned the purpose of being here. I blocked you once because your editing was not appropriate because you chose to want to be random arguments rather than just editing here. I have no idea what exactly you're doing but inviting people to view YouTube videos like here, and here is again not appropriate here. I have no idea why you forged another editors signature here and the rest of that discussion along with this incredibly disruptive nonsense are not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is appropriate so I'm asking for input here about the block. I'm again going to ask you to stoptrying to right the great wrongs so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were very innocent videos.Block them on youtube, not in my count! Now, I'm editing in ISIS on English Wikipedia, but I don't bother to only edit them on Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian Wikipedias. Or neither if you wish! I've been very disappointed about the editorial options of English WP, not nearly as much as about the Poeruguese, Spanish, French and Italian WPS... But I accept whatever you wish. Mondokir1 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) OK, what was my great gravely wrong on Wikipedia? I have no idea... supporting the self-determination of peoples? Being against war?... whatever... I had been disappointed about the coverage of the Donbass War on WP, anyway, and I was now interested about the coveraged of the ISIS war for humanitary issues. But if you think that's not worthful, I'll comply and good-bye... I'll find other ways to fight for the rights of common people of Eastern Ukrainians, Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Shiites... So, do whatever you wish![reply]

Sorry, I put the template on top of this section with instructions on how you can request an unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682 Well, any edit about ISIL in which I "forged" a signature was certainly by mistake. I can be blocked. Or just from pages concerning to wars, whatever you wish.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked for the same thing as last time. Just as with last time, if you can honestly say that you will not use Wikipedia as a forum or for righting great wrongs, you'll be unblocked. Don't think of this block as the be all end all. You must know by now that Wikipedia is not for "fighting for the rights" of peoples. It is an encyclopaedia that we build collaboratively. If you want to build an encyclopaedia and say so, then you'll be unblocked. However, if you only want a soapbox for advocacy, this is not the place to be. RGloucester — ☎ 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read my response to the last missives you posted on my talk page? I wrote that before I'd seen that you'd been blocked, and I believe it to be more relevant now than when I wrote it. Basically, I was telling you what RGloucester has written above. I'm concerned that you take things too personally. It's not useful for Wikipedia when you take sides. Worse still, it's far too much to take on board on an emotional level. Yes, we all have our opinions, but you're inevitably going to allow your opinions to impair your judgement when it comes to content. You've already proven yourself to be a far better editor than your latest spate of talk page behaviour represents you as being. I just hope that you're coping. Let me know if you're feeling this on a deeper level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions contained in the box about (using unblock with braces and the like) if you would to request to be unblocked. As I explained before, there exist methods to correct issues of systemic bias if you think that's a problem but that requires you to take on the difficult task of finding sources and then convincing people of any issues. And it's not about wars. The articles that cause issues vary quite a bit and can be close to ridiculous. It's an attitude issue. The question is whether you can (intend isn't enough) actively participate to create a neutral encyclopedia collaboratively with other editors here or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 Oh, well, thanks a lot to you three. I appreciate a lot a video concerning to the situation in Donbass, which I personally think is absolutely neutral, for instance: [3], and I'd recommend you to watch it. Concercing to ISIL, I started to edit it taking into account the expressed positions of Maajid Nawaz who is a person I've admired a lot for his discussions and statements about Islam and extremist Islamic movements. Also to Iryna Harpy, RGloucester and EkoGraf. By the way, signed it with a wrong name, because I usually copy paste and then I replace with my username, but I missed that part of replacing. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll engage this a bit. The issue isn't whether a source is "neutral" or not. We aren't here for "the truth" but only what is verifiable with reliable sources. Now first don't spam that on talk pages, but you can offer to introduce it for some point in some article if you have it. That discussion belongs on the article talk page, reason being so that the history from the talk page reflects all discussions on that topic rather than people five years from now figuring out that we discussed that video across a spectrum of talk pages. Second, that link is to a network called "TestTube" that is three months old on YouTube with a discussion by a Steve Goldbloom. Now I don't know who that is, whether or not TestTube is a reliable source and a host of other issues with it. If you're going to try to argue that that video should be treated as more reliable than the language that's already here based upon numerous sources, you are going to be rejected soundly. You can work to resolve the dispute about how it should be worded through numerous mechanisms but the page-long arguments you were doing before are not it. Do you understand all of this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: Sorry if that was considering spamming, I was just explaining my position with a video that is according to my thoughts about the issue to 4 users. I don't know how many users are enough to consider it spamming. (I't not my video, anyway). I don't know if TestTube can be considered as a reliable source, but some sources I've seen here can't either (in my opinion) be considered as reliable. The people that edit those sources are humans as we are and I was almost crushed for deleting a paragraph that, at the time, was not even sourced. (The information that was sourced was added later), about the elections for the rebel-led leadership in Donetsk and Luhansk), and I got some information that that information was more or less copied from a blog. I'm not asking that TestTube information is added. The reason why I suggested here was just to explain my position about the issue, be it relevant or not. I'll just redirect this info to someone that supports the other side of the conflict (@Herzen:). I hope that's not considered as spam.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've seen that Herzen doesn't recognise any Russian intervention. Well... he's not the right person to ask any opinion, given the obvious. I'm not for Russia, I'm from the people of Donbass, either they prefer to be Ukrainians, independent or Russians. And I wished this war was over.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Can I use my soapbox to express my opinions, instead of the Talk Pages? I'm not even being able to edit my userpage now. I never understood what the soapbox was for, really.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated on multiple occasions that Russia is intervening in the conflict in Ukraine. Russia has been quite open about its activity in Ukraine after the Milan summit. – Herzen (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzen: Ah, OK, then we agree... If you wish to see the video that was considered as spam (and is not mine, whatsoever), you may do. Thanks for reading. You may agree with this, disagree with that, I just wanted to point out that that is my position.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about spamming. It's not about your personal opinion. I don't care if you blast it to 100 people but not here. It's about what is your purpose here. Are you actually interested in honestly reviewing sources and writing the narrative or do you have a narrative and you'll string together whatever you can to keep it? For example, you didn't respond to the comment below about the pseudo-Islamic statement you decided to insert in one of the biggest front-page articles here. Are you aware that could be contentious? Do you have a source for that comment, do you plan on looking for a source or are you here just to say whatever you think is right and the people who actually review sources and analyze them are left to follow after you? Should that be kept in your opinion? If so, why? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseu

Hi, re your edit here can you cite the pseudo-Islamic from a notable source. Such a claim is not something that can be said in Wikipedia's voice and you should be careful to present such claims in suitable quotation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing for an unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mondolkiri1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I aknowledge that I have used the Talk Pages in Wikipedia to express my personal opinions about some issues. And I, erroneously signed the username with the signature of another user (in one particular case), because I usually copy paste the signatures and then I replace by my own, and this time I missed that, for lapse. I'll express my opinions in my own userpage, in another Wikipedia page (if there is one, e.g. sandbox), when I'm informed that it is allowed, and, in other cases, on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, anything that doesn't disturb Wikipedia

Decline reason:

This request looks peculiar given that you continue the exact behaviour you were blocked for just a few lines below. I'm revoking your talk page access - you're welcome to use WP:UTRS if you ever have a change of heart. m.o.p 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for reading. Yours faithfully, Nuno Pestana [Mondolkiri1) Mondolkiri1 Mondolkiri1 02:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some videos you may enjoy

[4]], [5], [6], [7], [8] and, if you'd consider me pro-Russian, thes ones: [9] and [10] (which are pro-Bashkir and pro-Crimean-Tatar, not pro-Russian). And concerning to Kurdistan, for those who might think I have an anti-Turkish position (of course I don't), this one: [11] and [12], I hope they're not considered as spam. Concerning to those who think I'm anti-Ukrainian: [13] or if you think I'm anti-Russian: [14]. And if you might eventually think I'm pro-black/coloured/asian South Africans, here it goes this one: [15] All of them are very good. We live in a small dot inside a small dot of the world!Don't waste that your time with hatred, please! I hope you don't, very honestly. But that would be the unfortunate case, I'd still continue to edit in Latin languages or in other sites. Also to @RGloucester:@Iryna Harpy:@Ricky81682:@Herzen:@Ricky81682:Mondolkiri1 talk 05:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you can't expect that we don't have emotions when thousands of ppl are being killed in Eastern Ukraine. As most deffects as Portugal has, Portugal and the Portuguese ppl would never tolerate that, either if they would Madeiran or Azorean separatists!. Neither I'd tolerate that about the Catalonian separatists! Maybe you're not close enough, but here we have 40-60 thousand Ukrainians, including from Eastern Ukraine! I won't wonder from which country you're from but I'll guess you're not from Italy, the only Western European country with more Ukrainians than Portugal. Mondolkiri1 talk 05:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop righting the great wrongs of the world. If you want to do that, get a blog and post whatever you want. I couldn't care less what you actually think. This isn't the place for that. Can you get that or do you want to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you supports mass genocide or whatever other evils you think? Are you actually serious about treating other people here with some respect or is this just about your ego? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a final brekthroug

@Iryna Harpy: I'm well able not to edit anymore in Enfglish Wikipedia, as I've thought I'm not a slave of the anglo-saxonic "reliable sources" that I eventually thought I was. The anglo-saxonic sources are anything but reliable. I far more trust France24, Le Monde, Le Figaro, El Mundo, El País, Folha de São Paulo, Estado de São Paulo, O Globom Diário de Notícias, Público, Deutche Welle, Der Speguel, Süddeutche Zeitung, Al Jazeera, Corriere della Sera, O Globo, La Republica, Il Messaggero, Zaman, Hürriet, etc, etc! This site has been exclusively based in Anglo-Saxonic sources and very few from S.A., which would be the few ones I would trustl. And from Asia, certainly at least NHK, far more than Australian News (sorry to say). Mondolkiri1 talk 08:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS

Thank you for your recent edit. Please note that editors are trying to keep the size of this article down, so words that repeat what is in wikilinks should be avoided. Please also note the edit summary here and rectify. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppets

I want to see you come back to the English Wikipedia. You are a good editor. However, sock-puppetry, such as your use of this account, is not the way to go about it. You need to address the reasons for your block, and follow the appropriate procedure. Please don't dig the hole any deeper. RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Mondolkiri1!

Happy New Year!

Mondolkiri1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.