Utilisateur:NeedsLove/Bonsoir.2013-05-10

Une page de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Harmonic (disambiguation)[modifier | modifier le code]

Hi NeedsLove, thanks for your contributions to en:Harmonic (disambiguation) but I think you need to read en:MOS:DAB. These kind of pages are only to assist navigation to the correct page. For that reason they are kept as short as possible - all encyclopaedic information goes in the articles themselves. Nor are they dictionary definitions or etymologies. That kind of information goes in Wiktionary. Regards, SpinningSpark 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I have insulted you from the beginning?, saying, "You are a liar! Go away! How impudent! Before I placed {{Wiktionary|harmonic}} on "en:Harmonic (disambiguation)", no one placed a link to Wiktionary". And YOUR thinking is not helpful at all for readers. YOUR thinking is against the Five Pillars. You just mentioned that you are not for adminship of encyclopedia, unfortunately.
-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

May 2013[modifier | modifier le code]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did to en:Talk:Harmonic (disambiguation). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing a good faith editor of "your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism" and "you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever" is personal attack rather than dealing with the issue at hand. SpinningSpark 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on en:Harmonic (disambiguation). 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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. SpinningSpark 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you needlessly accuse one more editor of "vandalism" or being a "cruel personal attacker" or anything similar then I will block you. SpinningSpark 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at en:Harmonic (disambiguation). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> <nowiki>{{unblock reviewed|1=

  1. The current lead of en:Harmonic (disambiguation) is wrong for musicians and too many people who have ever played instruments well, especially strings. When they use the term "Harmonic", it DOESN'T "USUALLY refer to the frequency components of a time-varying signal". I tried to correct this wrong lead, but, ignorant and rude ADMINS interrupted repeatedly against en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:Wikipedia:Harassment, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:MOS:DAB, and so on. As Hong Kong Wikimedians have already proposed, Wikipedia should accept as admins ONLY PROFESSIONAL persons who have made public their real names and their telephone number of their own free will.
  2. ADMINS may be en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, en:User:Kleinzach, and en:User:Master of Puppets. They have ganged up on me like en:Nazis without any valid-reasonable explanation, though I have just obeyed to en:MOS:DAB, en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, en:Wikipedia:Consensus, and so on.
  3. Please read en:MOS:DAB and en:WP:5P from the top to the bottom. And find that there is no guidelines when a disambiguation page need/can have both of "Adjective" section and "Noun" section, and that all of the leads edited by me are just one sentence and fulfilling en:MOS:DAB, and that en:MOS:DAB says on the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Therefore, it is very evident that ONLY ADMINS have been terribly wrong against en:MOS:DAB, en:WP:5P, en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:Wikipedia:No original research, en:Wikipedia:Vandalism, etw. and that ONLY ADMINS have repeated edit warring, unfortunately. First of all, those who are easily haunted by the delusion that Wikipedia's MOSs in their head are perfect and those who invite editor's suspicions of abusing three-revert rule| for personal attack, should resign adminship NOW or should be replaced with adequate professional persons QUICKLY. I haven't reverted three times. I have just corrected each time, adding new parts. Those who have repeated WRONG, USELESS and HARMFUL reverts are ONLY the ADMINS who couldn't have achieved accountability to me and all readers.
  4. en:MOS:DAB says, "It should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list:", but this guideline has been repeatedly violated by the ADMINS themselves(even now). Therefore, I have to refrain from changing the most unpreferable part and I can't understand what they are saying, therefore, I have to ask various questions to THEM. But, THEY have only cooked up as if my questions were personal attacks. For example, a person A found a doubtful character B who seemed to be crazy over personal-attacking(abusing) A. A politely asked B natural questions for self-defense, but B couldn't answered, on the contrary, B escalated personal-attacks to terrorist-attacks. Then, if there is a person C who accused A of personal-attacking, not B, it is very obvious that B and C is complicity.
  5. As you know, I just ask questions that I have been forced to ask by the ADMINS, and tried to understand each other and stop the ADMINS' personal attack(now, including ADMINS' criminal threatening and terribly unfair Blocking), but they couldn't have explained sincerely at all because I am innocent while they are irresponsible, dishonest, unfair and illegal against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as mentioned above. This blocking is too unfair.|decline=You were blocked for edit warring, and this appeal would not get that reversed since you don't address the edit warring issue at all. Regardless, unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) }}

I already said above,

Everyone can easily find the evidences against ADMINS' statement( +28, +231, +5, +443, +520, ±0, +790 by NeedsLove(me) )( -28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS )( -1335, -1258 personal-attacking-revert by ADMINS ). ADMINS have responsibility to show me enough evidences before reverting, threatening and blocking, but, any ADMIN could haven't. It's obviously too unfair injustice. In other words, ADMINS have only proved themselves to be something like Nazis. 

-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

ADMINS' stalking? criminal threatening? personal attacking?[modifier | modifier le code]

I warned you above you could be blocked for personal attacks. Since you have called other editors (besides me) Nazis - in your block appeal of all places - I have extended your block by a week. If you do it again you will lose the privilege of posting on this page altogether. SpinningSpark 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. Please explain why you confused frank expression of "like Nazis" with accusation of illegal Nazis.
  2. Are YOU really Nazis, aren't you?
  3. Please explain what you call a group that looks like nothing but Nazis.
  4. Please explain why you can insist that ADMIN have the right to oppress the person who tell the truth.
  5. Please explain what you want be called "like ...". I don't know what kind of persons YOU are. People around me always answer something when they are asked a question, because we know consensus consists of communication. It is en:common sense. Who created the article of "en:Wikipedia:Consensus" seemed to have this en:common sense. But YOU don't. Who are YOU? Why are YOU "ADMIN"s? ADMINs are all psychos? It depends on YOU(ADMINS). Not me. Don't shift the blame onto me. All YOU have to do is to answer the questions from non-admin editors sincerely. If YOU can't, YOU did destroy the "en:Wikipedia:Consensus". It is very natural for non-admin editors to ask a question to ADMINS. But YOU don't even understand it natural. Have YOU always personal-attacked, abused and blocked non-admin editors who ask a question to YOU? Who do YOU think YOU are? "ADMIN"s? Why are YOU "ADMIN"s? ADMINs are all psychos? Whether YOU are called "like Nazi(s)" or something like that depends on YOU. Not me. Don't shift the blame onto me "like Nazis". This is very natural and very fair. Don't forget "en:Wikipedia:Consensus" with non-admin editors.
  6. The more ADMINS revert NON-ADMINS' edits, the more ADMINS look like en:Nazis (-28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS-1335, -1258 by ADMINS against interwiki links ).
  7. The more ADMINS threat("warn") NON-ADMINS, the more ADMINS look like en:Nazis.
  8. The more ADMINS block NON-ADMINS, the more ADMINS look like en:Nazis.
  9. The more ADMINS abuse NON-ADMINS like en:Nazis, the more Wikimedia Projects are dameged unfairly.
  10. These are very clear and very natural. Probably, ADMINS haven't understanded even the fact that Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedias in the world have been asking us(NON-ADMIN EDITORS) to donate.
  11. I have donated several times, but, I haven't donated to be abused by ADMINS. Shame on YOU!
-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

Help me ![modifier | modifier le code]

{{ Help Me }}{{ admin help }}

  1. Please unblock me as possible as soon, because all of the reasons for blocking are unfair and wrong.
  2. Other reasons are mentioned above and below.
  3. Those who have been edit-warring are only the ADMINS (-28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS, -1335, -1258 by ADMINS against interwiki links ).
  4. Those who have been personal-attacking(including ADMINS' criminally lying, criminally threatening, and unfairly blocking) are only the ADMINS (-28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS, -1335, -1258 by ADMINS against interwiki links, and this talk page ).
  5. ADMINS in question may be User:Michael Bednarek , User:Spinningspark , User:Just plain Bill , User:Kleinzach , User:Master of Puppets , User:jpgordon , etc. They have acted like en:Nazis, destroying en:justice(en:fairness), en:consideration for others, en:honesty, en:human rights, en:freedom, en:WP:5P, en:Wikipedia:Consensus with NON-ADMIN EDITORS, en:Wikipedia:Harassment, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:Wikipedia:Vandalism, en:MOS:DAB, and so on.
  6. en:User:Spinningspark hasn't requested en:User:Michael Bednarek to answer the questions that he should have explained responsibly. When respecting en:Wikipedia:Consensus, it means that User:Spinningspark is too stupid to be an admin. If so, other admins had already made User:Spinningspark resigned or banned him. But not. All of admins in English Wikipedia are too stupid to be admins? The root of all evil is either User:Michael Bednarek , or User:Spinningspark , or User:Just plain Bill , or User:Kleinzach , or User:Master of Puppets , or User:jpgordon , or other admin. Who are responsible for investigating this problem are only other admins. Not me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR). Don't shift the blame onto me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR) unfairly.
  7. Similarly, User:Just plain Bill hasn't requested User:Michael Bednarek and User:Spinningspark to answer the questions that they should have explained responsibly. When respecting en:Wikipedia:Consensus, it means that User:Just plain Bill is too stupid to be an admin. If so, other admins had already made User:Just plain Bill resigned or banned him. But not. All of admins in English Wikipedia are too stupid to be admins? The root of all evil is either User:Michael Bednarek , or User:Spinningspark , or User:Just plain Bill , or User:Kleinzach , or User:Master of Puppets , or User:jpgordon , or other admin. Who are responsible for investigating these problems are only other admins. Not me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR). Don't shift the blame onto me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR) unjustly.
  8. Moreover, User:Kleinzach hasn't requested User:Michael Bednarek , User:Spinningspark and User:Just plain Bill to answer the questions that they should have explained responsibly. When respecting en:Wikipedia:Consensus, it means that User:Kleinzach is too stupid to be an admin. If so, other admins had already made User:Kleinzach resigned or banned him. But not. All of admins in English Wikipedia are too stupid to be admins? The root of all evil is either User:Michael Bednarek , or User:Spinningspark , or User:Just plain Bill , or User:Kleinzach , or User:Master of Puppets , or User:jpgordon , or other admin. Who are responsible for investigating these problems are only other admins. Not me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR). Don't shift the blame onto me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR) unfaily.
  9. Besides, User:Master of Puppets hasn't requested User:Michael Bednarek , User:Spinningspark and User:Just plain Bill to answer the questions that they should have explained responsibly. When respecting en:Wikipedia:Consensus, it means that User:Master of Puppets is too stupid to be an admin. If so, other admins had already made User:Master of Puppets resigned or banned him. But not. All of admins in English Wikipedia are too stupid to be admins? The root of all evil is either User:Michael Bednarek , or User:Spinningspark , or User:Just plain Bill , or User:Kleinzach , or User:Master of Puppets , or User:jpgordon , or other admin. Who are responsible for investigating these problems are only other admins. Not me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR). Don't shift the blame onto me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR) unjustly.
  10. Why have other admins neither banned, nor blocked, nor resigned terribly crazy criminal ADMINS like en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, en:User:Kleinzach, en:User:Master of Puppets, and User:jpgordon ? The root of all evil is either User:Michael Bednarek , or User:Spinningspark , or User:Just plain Bill , or User:Kleinzach , or User:Master of Puppets , or User:jpgordon , or other admin. Who are responsible for investigating these problems are only other admins. Not me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR). Don't shift the blame onto me(a NON-ADMIN EDITOR) unjustly.
  11. Please ban or make resigned all of the too stupid and too sociopath ADMINS who are not able to fulfill en:Wikipedia:Consensus with NON-ADMIN EDITORS(GENERAL EDITORS).
  12. Who can be fully contented with the ADMINS' wrong explanations with full of lies? ? N O B O D Y but the ADMINS !
  13. Have this English Wikipedia been invaded and ruled by en:Nazis or somethng like that(anti-Jewish, anti-Orchestra, anti-democracy, anti-human-rights, anti-freedom)? Its evidences are potatoey "en:Berlin Philharmonic" , potatoey "en:Vienna Philharmonic", en:Talk:Berlin Philharmonic, [1], [2], and so on.
-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

OMG ! 2013-05-07 copy and paste, OMG ![modifier | modifier le code]

25px|alt=Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did to en:Talk:Harmonic (disambiguation). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing a good faith editor of "your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism" and "you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever" is personal attack rather than dealing with the issue at hand. SpinningSpark 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

30px|left|alt=|link= You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on en:Harmonic (disambiguation). 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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. SpinningSpark 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

25px|alt=|link= Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you needlessly accuse one more editor of "vandalism" or being a "cruel personal attacker" or anything similar then I will block you. SpinningSpark 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. What a bundle of lies... Their lies, threatening, and blocking are evidently the admins' criminal "vandalism", and "cruel personal attacks".
  2. If the ADMINS are thinking that their behaviors are right, before YOU write YOUR ranting accusations on my talk page, answer all of my questions sincerely. So, it is very obvious that ONLY the ADMINS have been destroying the communications and consensus between ADMINS and NON-ADMIN EDITORS. It is very evident that ONLY the ADMINS have repeated edit-warring (-28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS, -1335, -1258 by ADMINS against interwiki links ).
  3. The current lead of en:Harmonic (disambiguation) is wrong for musicians and too many people who have ever played instruments well, especially strings. When they use the term "Harmonic", it DOESN'T "USUALLY refer to the frequency components of a time-varying signal". I tried to correct this wrong lead, but, ignorant and rude ADMINS interrupted repeatedly against en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:Wikipedia:Harassment, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:MOS:DAB, and so on.
  4. ADMINS in question may be User:Michael Bednarek , User:Spinningspark , User:Just plain Bill , User:Kleinzach , User:Master of Puppets , User:jpgordon , etc. They have acted like en:Nazis, ignoring and destroying en:justice(en:fairness), en:consideration for others, en:honesty, en:human rights, en:freedom, en:WP:5P, en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:Wikipedia:Harassment, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:Wikipedia:Vandalism, en:MOS:DAB, and so on.
  5. Thesse ADMINS have repeated personal attack to me like en:Nazis, without any valid-reasonable explanation, though I have just obeyed to en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:MOS:DAB, en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and so on.
  6. Please read en:MOS:DAB and en:WP:5P from the top to the bottom. And find that there is no guidelines when a disambiguation page need/can have both of "Adjective" section and "Noun" section, and that all of the leads edited by me are just one sentence and fulfilling en:MOS:DAB, and that en:MOS:DAB says on the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Therefore, it is very evident that ONLY the ADMINS have been terribly wrong against en:WP:5P, en:Wikipedia:Consensus, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:Wikipedia:No original research, en:Wikipedia:Vandalism, en:MOS:DAB, etc. and that ONLY the ADMINS have repeated edit warring.
  7. First of all, those who are easily haunted by the delusion that Wikipedia's MOSs in their head are perfect and those who invite NON-ADMIN EDITORs' suspicions of abusing en:Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, en:Wikipedia:No personal attack, en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy, should resign adminship NOW, or should be replaced with adequate professional persons QUICKLY. I haven't reverted three times. I have just corrected each time, adding new parts ( +28, +231, +5, +443, +520, ±0, +790 by NeedsLove(me) ). Those who have repeated WRONG, USELESS and HARMFUL edit-warring and personal-attack are ONLY the ADMINS ( -28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS ) who couldn't have achieved accountability to me and all readers.
  8. As you know, I just ask the questions in order to understand each other and stop the admins' en:WP:Personal attack(now, including admins' stalking, threatening and blocking). However, en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, and en:User:Kleinzach are crazy about reverting without any reasonable explanations. Moreover, they are lying to me and all readers, abusing me, and threatening me, while they haven't answered the questions that they should have answered first.
  9. If en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, and en:User:Kleinzach had been right and hadn't personal-attacked me, en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, and en:User:Just plain Bill could have already answered all of my questions very easily at en:Talk:Harmonic (disambiguation) and wouldn't have felt the necessity for blocking me. But not so with THEM. This fact proved that en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, and en:User:Kleinzach have been terribly wrong and ONLY THEY have done personal attack me like en:Nazis.
  10. Whom should I ask about what you've done? Be responsible for what you've done on your own will. It's en:common sense. Why can you replace the questions about "your personal attacks" with "personal attacks to you"? I have never seen such a crazy liar.
  11. If I wasn't concerned about the admins' personal attacks and didn't ask you, who should ask you about "your personal attacks"? WHO?
  12. See [3]. Why has User:Spinningspark been denying and deleting that "en:Harmonic is basically an adjective", without any valid explanation ? It obviously shows that en:User:Spinningspark's revert is en:WP:Vandalism and en:WP:Personal attack.
  13. See [4]. If you are not a cruel personal attacker, you can easily realize that the lead edited by me is one sentence and obeys to en:MOS:DAB perfectly except the part that has existed before I edited. The current lead ("Harmonic usually refers to the frequency components of a time-varying signal, such as a musical note.") has been admitted by the ADMINS still now in spite of violating en:MOS:DAB. en:MOS:DAB says, "It should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list:", but this guideline has been violated by the ADMINS themselves ( EVEN NOW ! ). Therefore, the admins cannot have the right to revert with the reason of en:MOS:DAB, and it is obvious that their reverts are against en:MOS:DAB from the beginning.
  14. See [5]. This revert is also en:WP:Vandalism and en:WP:Personal attack without any valid explanation, and against en:Wikipedia:Consensus and en:MOS:DAB.
  15. See [6]. en:User:Kleinzach suddenly appeared and threatend me, as if en:User:Kleinzach were en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, and en:User:Just plain Bill. And he reverted, lying and threatening unfairly. It is nothing but criminal en:WP:Personal attack.
  16. Moreover, en:User:Kleinzach has mistaken deliberately as if I were "Edit warring", I have just asked what I have to ask, and, en:User:Michael Bednarek, en:User:Spinningspark, en:User:Just plain Bill, and en:User:Kleinzach have been abusing me without any valid explanation, only because THEY can't explain(THEY are wrong).
-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

Martha Gellhorn 1978[modifier | modifier le code]

Dear NeedsLove, for en:Martha Gellhorn I copy and paste here my 5 May posting to User:Michael Bednarek. It contains a needed correction about Gellhorn's attitude to Stalinism in the wiki-lemma dating before 5th of May: Dear Michael, the lemma about Martha Gellhorn tells us that Gellhorn never criticized Stalin's communism. That is not true. 'Travels with myself and another' (1978) contains a rather sour but interesting chapter about her 1972 travelling to Moscow; there she visited "Mrs. M." - and all details in that text makes us believe that that person has been Osip Mandelstam's widow Nadjezjda Mandelstam. In that text Gellhorn is very, very critical about Stalin and his period. Because I have only the Dutch translation of the book I cannot give citations in English. (The chapter in Dutch: 'Een blik op Moedertje Rusland' = A view on Mom Russia). My suggestion: maybe an expert wiki-man in your country could control and correct the lemma. - Excuse my poor English! Greetings from Cuijk (Holland), 195.241.219.56 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 195.241.219.56 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be simple. Though I can't read en:Dutch, I can help you.
  1. If you want to directly add relevant sources to "en:Martha Gellhorn", you had better get the English-language book, "Travels with myself and another". And add the source to the sentence concerned, using <ref></ref> and en:Template:Cite book(in Dutch, nl:Sjabloon:Citeer boek) like below:
    <ref> {{cite book | last = Gellhorn | first = Martha | authorlink = Martha Gellhorn | title = Travels with Myself and Another: A Memoir | trans_title = | url = http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781585420902,00.html | accessdate = | edition = | date = | origyear = | year = | month = | publisher = | location = | language = | isbn = | id = | page = | pages = | chapter = | trans_chapter = | quote = | layurl = http://www.amazon.com/Travels-Myself-Another-A-Memoir/dp/1585420905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368102719&sr=8-1&keywords=Travels+with+myself+and+another }} </ref>
  2. There is a way to indirectly reflect your source(your Dutch book) to "en:Martha Gellhorn". First, you need go to the section concerning her attitude to Stalin or Stalin's communism in the article "en:nl:Martha Gellhorn" and make the sentence sourced as mentioned above, showing the Dutch title("Travels with myself and another"?), the chapter name 'Een blik op Moedertje Rusland', the pages(p. xy or pp. xy - xz) of your source, and so on. ISBN is preferable. Quote is possible and helpful for readers. Basically, English templates are available in any Wikipedia.
  3. After editing nl:Martha Gellhorn, see the left side bar, (click "Hulmpmiddelen",) and click "Permanente Kooppeling". You can get the "oldid=XXXXXXXX" of the page from the address bar.
  4. Second, you need come to the section concerning her attitude to Stalin or Stalin's communism in the article "en:Martha Gellhorn" and edit.
  5. And before you click "Save page", enter "From [[:nl:Martha Gellhorn]] as of revision (date,month,year,time,)..." into "Edit summary".
  6. After editing en:Martha Gellhorn, see the left side bar, (click "toolbox", and click "Permanent link". You can get the "oldid=YYYYYYYYYY" of the page from the address bar.
  7. Third, you need announce in the article talk page(en:Talk:Martha Gellhorn) that you translated from the Dutch Wikipedia. You have to make a new section and place this en:Template:translated page, that is, {{translated page| nl | Martha Gellhorn | version = XXXXXXXX | insertversion = YYYYYYYYYY | section = ?Political and religious views }}.
  8. For more information, see en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects and en:Template:translated page.
  9. Probably, you have to click "undo" button, too, because there seems to be (anti-Jewish, anti-Orchestra, anti-music, anti-democracy, anti-human-rights, anti-freedom) admins who are crazy about disruptive personal-attack-reverting, as you know.-1335, -1258 personal-attacking-revert by ADMINS
  10. ADMINS en:stalking me, repeated personal-attack-reverting my edits disruptively ( -28, -214, -448, -520, -790 by ADMINS ). ADMINS threatening criminally, have abused me by blocking. ADMINS have managed to damage me, not caring what anybody thought. Maybe, thus, ADMINS have dameged non-adminl Wikipedians and Wikipedia itself unfairly, intensively, and extensively (like en:Nazis). Probably I have to go into exile. So, please don't think I can edit for you. Do it yourselef. Don't trust en:Wikipedia:Administrators. Good luck.
-- NeedsLove (d) 10 mai 2013 à 15:15 (CEST)

+ :en:
Ce document provient de « https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:NeedsLove/Bonsoir.2013-05-10&oldid=92957322 ».