User talk:Magnagr

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Magnagr! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 11:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Eugenio Barsanti, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Induction motor appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Radio. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Edit warring will get you blocked. Insisting on having your own way instead of working to achieve consensus is disruptive and will get you blocked. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Induction motor. WAYNESLAM 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report[edit]

Hello Magnagr,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Magnagr (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block. You edit warred. If you had "read and understood" WP:EW you would realise that neither the fact that you think you were right nor the fact that your reverts added material but did not remove any is relevant. You repeatedly made the same edit: that is edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2011 (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.

Usually where it says "your reason here", you show us how you have read and understood WP:EW, and based on having read WP:GAB, you're ready and able to be unblocked earlier than a mere 24hrs... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} I've read and understood WP:EW and WP:GAB. I 've not understood yet why someone has decided to give me a WP:AN/EW and then a block. I've just added sourced informations in an article without deleting previous contributions (just a picture). I've not received any reply to my osservations both in the article comment section and in the noticeboard section. Magnagr (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to have multiple unblock requests; I've deactivated the second on for you and left the original open. The key you appear to be missing is "a revert means undoing the actions of another editor". If you're undoing the removal of your material, that is a revert. It has nothing to do with adding or removing. Does this make sense to you? Kuru (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Guglielmo Marconi appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Yoganate79 (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS THE ARTICLE I'VE FOUND (READ HEREINAFTER THE DENIGRATORY PASSAGES I'VE FOUND AGAINST MARCONI). WOULD U CONSIDER IT BASED ON A NPOV??? THIS IS NOT AN ARTCILE ABOUT MARCONI BUT AGAINST MARCONI (AND OF COURSE PRO TESLA). MY CONTRIBUTION ARE BASED ON WELL REFERENCED SOURCES:THEY ARE NOT MY OPINIONS... - This was not a new idea—numerous investigators had been exploring wireless telegraph technologies for over 50 years, but none had proven commercially successful. Marconi did not discover any new and revolutionary principle in his wireless-telegraph system, but rather he assembled and improved a number of components, unified and adapted them to his system - Marconi's late-1895 transmission of signals was for around a mile (1.6 km). This was small compared to Tesla's early-1895 transmissions of up to 50 miles. For more see "Nikola Tesla On His Work with Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power", Leland I. Anderson, Twenty First Century Books, 2002, pp. 26-27. - According to the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, the Marconi instruments were tested around 1899 and the tests concerning his wireless system found that the "[...] coherer, principle of which was discovered some twenty years ago, [was] the only electrical instrument or device contained in the apparatus that is at all new -The first stage operated at lower voltage and provided the energy for the second stage to spark at a higher voltage. Nikola Tesla, a rival in transatlantic transmission, stated after being told of Marconi's reported transmission that "Marconi [... was] using seventeen of my patents -Marconi began to build high-powered stations on both sides of the Atlantic to communicate with ships at sea, in competition with other inventors. In 1904 a commercial service was established to transmit nightly news summaries to subscribing ships, which could incorporate them into their on-board newspapers. A regular transatlantic radio-telegraph service was finally begun on 17 October 1907[29] between Clifden Ireland and Glace Bay, but even after this the company struggled for many years to provide reliable communication. -Marconi's work built upon the discoveries of numerous other scientists and experimenters. His "two-circuit" equipment, consisting of a spark-gap transmitter plus a coherer-receiver, was similar to those used by other experimenters, and in particular to that employed by Oliver Lodge in a series of widely reported demonstrations in 1894. There were claims that Marconi was able to signal for greater distances than anyone else when using the spark-gap and coherer combination, but these have been disputed (notably by Tesla). -When Marconi transmitted signals across the Atlantic on December 12, 1901, Tesla himself commented: "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using 17 of my patents. -The Fascist regime in Italy credited Marconi with the first improvised arrangement in the development of radio.[35] There was controversy whether his contribution was sufficient to deserve patent protection, or if his devices were too close to the original ones developed by Hertz, Popov, Branley, Tesla, and Lodge to be patentable. -While Marconi did pioneering demonstrations for the time, his equipment was limited by being essentially untuned, which greatly restricted the number of spark-gap radio transmitters which could operate simultaneously in a geographical area without causing mutually disruptive interference. (Continuous-wave transmitters were naturally more selective and less prone to this deficiency). Marconi addressed this defect with a patent application for a much more sophisticated "four-circuit" design, which featured two tuned-circuits at both the transmitting and receiving antennas. This was issued as British patent number 7,777 on 26 April 1900. However, this patent came after significant earlier work had been done on electrical tuning by Nikola Tesla and Oliver Lodge. (As a defensive move, in 1911 the Marconi Company purchased the Lodge-Muirhead Syndicate, whose primary asset was Oliver Lodge's 1897 tuning patent. This followed a 1911 court case in which the Marconi company was ruled to have illegally used the techniques described under Lodge's tuning patent.) Thus, the "four-sevens" patent and its equivalents in other countries was the subject of numerous legal challenges, with rulings which varied by jurisdiction, from full validation of Marconi's tuning patent to complete nullification. -In 1943, a lawsuit regarding Marconi's numerous other radio patents was resolved in the United States. The court decision was based on the prior work conducted by others, including Nikola Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and John Stone Stone, from which some of Marconi patents (such as U.S. Patent 763,772) stemmed. The U. S. Supreme Court stated that, -Over the years, the Marconi companies gained a reputation for being technically conservative, in particular by continuing to use inefficient spark-transmitter technology, which could only be used for radiotelegraph operations, long after it was apparent that the future of radio communication lay with continuous-wave transmissions, which were more efficient and could be used for audio transmissions. Somewhat belatedly, the company did begin significant work with continuous-wave equipment beginning in 1915, after the introduction of the oscillating vacuum tube (valve). In 1920, employing a vacuum tube transmitter, the Chelmsford Marconi factory was the location for the first entertainment radio broadcasts in the United Kingdom—one of these featured Dame Nellie Melba. In 1922 regular entertainment broadcasts commenced from the Marconi Research Centre at Writtle -Later in life, Marconi was an active Italian Fascist[48] and an apologist for their ideology and actions such as the attack by Italian forces in EthiopiaMagnagr (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Radio, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yoganate79 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Radio. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Yoganate79 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Radio, you may be blocked from editing. Yoganate79 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Radio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yoganate79 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Disruptive Editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Added sourced informations. Asked other authors opinion in talk page since 17 july 2011. No answer or collaboration since then. The block has no reason to exist

Decline reason:

You were edit warring at Radio. Further, despite being repeatedly warned against it, you were inserting your own personal analysis into the article. It doesn't matter that you discussed it and nobody responded to you on the talk page; as soon as you saw that you were being repeatedly reverted, you should have stopped trying to insert the material in question. I notice the exact same thing, with the exact same text, happened in July, with the exact same result; did you expect something different? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:16, 29 September 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's not my analysis but that one of serious researchers about the subject (if only someone would take the trouble to read the references). You asked for sourced informations, I provided them but it was not enough. You asked for discussion and collaboration with other editors, I did it (they didn't) and it was not enough. I've fully complied with all the Wikipedia rules but all this seems not enough. I don't like wasting my time and energy and all this seems a mockery. If the club of free censors has decided to refuse any contribution opposite to the imposed mainstream ideology, I can happily leave you enjoying this masterpiece article. Just to remember one of the wikipedia pillar:Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is edit warring. That you think your content was correct does not change that; the other parties thought their content was correct, too. You should have stopped. Take the time to read WP:CON, a policy you might find more useful than repeated blocks for edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:28, 30 September 2011 (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.

Source information needed for File:Captured british soldiers.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Captured british soldiers.jpg. However, the file description needs source information before it's okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Add a detailed description of who the original author is and where you got it. Please be specific, and include a link to the source if you can.
Be sure to save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Telephone. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Radio, you may be blocked from editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, those edits of Radio and Telephone do not belong in the articles themselves. They seem OK to put on the corresponding Talk pages Talk:Radio and Talk:Telephone, so I will move them to those places. I see that you made a similar addition to Talk:Alexander Graham Bell, which seems OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added my contribution on the Talk page, where is possible the free debate. My opinion is that one of the article I linked, a fully referenced 50 pg document. Maybe the most rigorous source about the history of the invention of the telephone. I guess my commentary was within the boundaries of decency

--Magnagr (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Magnagr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Internal combustion engine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your change directly contradicted the cited source. If this patent was actually granted then you need to provide a reliable source showing that. Meters (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Magnagr. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikola Nalješković, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Daß Wölf. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Republic of Ragusa. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Daß Wölf 23:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Could you explain this edit? I hope you aren’t removing Croat or Croatia relations out of spite. Is there a source you found countering Croat decent? If so we can include that his origin is Croat or Italian decent as compromise as many Coastal Croatian areas are mixed Slavic and Italian ancestry. Like any country it is mixed. I agree with you partly on the Gandolic page. It is not right to remove the Italian name variant as both are historically relevant. I always noticed friendliness between the two countries and peoples visiting each other. No need for this. I called out SerVasi as well. Not to “attack” you guys but promote solutions so we can focus on no nationalistic anxiety edits. If you need help don’t hesitate to reach out on my page. Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]