Hello, you revert my rewording in "Abolition of Monarchy". However, could the original wording of "Abolished its monarchy through a decision by the country's politicians without a referendum being held." and 'Decision of the parliament and without consent of the people of Nepal, as a referendum was never held" is too bias? 149.110.134.93 ( talk) 08:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Septimania into
Siege of Narbonne (752–759). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello GenoV84. I came across a couple of your contributions in my wanderings through our encyclopaedia and i notice that you have on several occasions ~ here and here, for example ~ called things vandalism which are not, by our definition, vandalism. I suggest you might want to reread WP:NOTVAND to remind yourself, especially as calling people vandals may be perceived as a personal attack. In addition, while i'm not trying to pick, i don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED means what you seem to thing ~ it is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material. Happy days ~ Lindsay H ello 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED [...] is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material, but this template here exists on Wikipedia and contradicts your baseless assertion, as it can be used specifically to warn those editors that attempt to "remove topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article". The template doesn't mention "potentially offensive content" at all, it explicitly mentions "topically-relevant content", i.e. any relevant informations that can be found in a Wikipedia article. You're still wrong. GenoV84 ( talk) 20:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you revert my rewording in "Abolition of Monarchy". However, could the original wording of "Abolished its monarchy through a decision by the country's politicians without a referendum being held." and 'Decision of the parliament and without consent of the people of Nepal, as a referendum was never held" is too bias? 149.110.134.93 ( talk) 08:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Septimania into
Siege of Narbonne (752–759). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello GenoV84. I came across a couple of your contributions in my wanderings through our encyclopaedia and i notice that you have on several occasions ~ here and here, for example ~ called things vandalism which are not, by our definition, vandalism. I suggest you might want to reread WP:NOTVAND to remind yourself, especially as calling people vandals may be perceived as a personal attack. In addition, while i'm not trying to pick, i don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED means what you seem to thing ~ it is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material. Happy days ~ Lindsay H ello 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED [...] is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material, but this template here exists on Wikipedia and contradicts your baseless assertion, as it can be used specifically to warn those editors that attempt to "remove topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article". The template doesn't mention "potentially offensive content" at all, it explicitly mentions "topically-relevant content", i.e. any relevant informations that can be found in a Wikipedia article. You're still wrong. GenoV84 ( talk) 20:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)