|
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove dates and years from articles. --
aktsu (
t /
c)
15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- aktsu ( t / c) 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Again, pleast stop removing years and dates from articles. --
aktsu (
t /
c)
08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You've been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guto2003; feel free to comment there. In addition, please read and respond to messages left on your talk page. If you've offered any justification for your removal of dates on citations, I don't see it. You've been repeatedly asked for a justification with no apparent response. If you need help using a talk page, please see Wikipedia:Talk page. – Luna Santin ( talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Guto2003. You have been the subject of a Aministrative incident report as the result of what appear to a vandalising edits on Wikipedia. In future if you have reasons to remove dates or references from articles, please provide explanations in the article discussion pages. However if you persist in making edits that appear to be vandalism, and/or failing to provide adequate reasons for your edits, you will be immediately blocked from further editing. Manning ( talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to
Christopher Hitchens, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's
categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's
verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add the above category to articles about Iranian politicians, unless there is verifiable information present in those articles that anti-communism was/is an important part of that person's political stance. The articles where you added this category, such as Saeed Jalili, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Parviz Davoodi, etc, do not mention anti-communism at all. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Nelson Mandela has been reverted, as it introduced
negative or controversial biographical material without providing a
reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be
sourced to address the issue of
libel. Thank you.
Logan (
talk)
21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Brotha Lynch Hung. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please stop adding categories about medical conditions without providing a reliable source. Active Banana (bananaphone 02:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Please show the sources said that Ho Chi Minh is an Anti-Revisionist.-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. (
✉→
BWilkins
←✎)
23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Do you really think that the edit summary you used here is appropriate for a major religious leader's page? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Your word choice in edit-summaries is at times juvenile. Grow up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The word choice employed by some Wikipedians (i.e. "dictator", "genocidal", "child eater", etc.) is "juvenile", not mine. Wikipedian opportunism and double standards is juvenile. ~~ Talk to me
~~ ;D
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Billy Graham comment on the page Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
at all your Citation Needed tag at Emma Goldman as her disillusionment with Soviet Russia is well known. It's sort of like demanding more proof that cigarette smoking is bad for your health. Oh well. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The tag was about the allegation of "repression, mismanagement, and corruption", which can clearly be defined as an expression of the personal point of view of the asshole who has written such a sentence. Every affirmation demands a reference. ;) ~~ Товарищ Гуто... Поговори со мной
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Miroslav (given name) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted you're edits, but maid it more clear the referencing.. (everything is referenced, I wrote the article, and nothing seems to have changed much since).. Don't worry, everything is referenced.. Secondly, while I see you're a communist, a good idea would not to identify yourself with the Soviet Union, it was a disaster. There is hope in Cuba tough, the socialist market economy will hopefully flourish there and the political system will be liberalized and further democratized :) ... Anyway, if anything else is left unclear just give a note on my talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to communism, "neutrality" don't mean shit to most "Wikipedians", ain't it, TIAYN? As they say, talk is cheap, but only in Wikipedia, bullshit talking is free. Wikipedia, a hotbed for assholes and shit talkers. Guto2003 ( talk) 10:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I'm Guto and your opinion doesn't mean shit to me. You talking outta your ass.
By the way, I'm sorry for the late response. Your comment may have gone unnoticed, since I have some better things to do than to be engaging in discussions in a content-free, unthrustworthy "encyclopedia". Guto2003 ( talk) 10:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC) You know me and your opinion still doesn't mean shit to me anyway.
I have completely reverted your edits because they were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times. Including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames. Regards, § DDima 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah? Fuck you. There are fascists all over that Euromaidan movement. Just check the ideology that guides most political parties involved in it, you fuck. ~~ User:Guto2003
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edits
like this are completely unacceptable. I will block you if such attack repeats.
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
23:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
8=====D (_(_|J
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Polish People's Republic may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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) 23:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Suharto. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. for edit warring WP:3RR noting the that the category you want to add is unsupported by the article content take it to the talk page to resolve Gnan garra 07:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
2011 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"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) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, no worries.
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 01:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah... Guto2003 ( Come and get some!)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Rosner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGB. 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) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was so impressed with your performance that I opened an ANI topic about you. Please reply there.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sooo damn flattered... Thanks! Guto2003 Talk ya a** off
Hello, Guto2003. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on
Lil' Keke, but you didn't support your changes with a
citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning
how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you!
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
23:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "There were NOTHING "incidental" about Indian casualties in the removals. They were criminal acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I see a highly pro-American bias in your argumentation."
I confess to a pro-English language bias. With that in mind, I find that according to the definition of genocide, you are applying it as a contentious label.
The biological warfare involving smallpox was genocidal. The Indian Removal Act & Trail of Tears, while being acts of collective punishment, discrimination, ethnic cleansing, ethnic conflict, forced migration, human rights abuses, persecution, racism, & violence, were not genocidal as these were not an effort to extinguish those tribes. You therefore cannot call it a genocide under WP:NPOV. Others will continually revert it.
If you have a different opinion, take it to the Talk:Andrew Jackson & Talk:Martin Van Buren pages before again attempting these edits.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Martin Van Buren seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Martin Van Buren as
Category:Genocide perpetrators is a
contentious label.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Andrew Jackson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Andrew Jackson as
Category:Genocide perpetrators is a
contentious label.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. DMacks ( talk) 16:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Guto2003. 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)
Hello, I'm
Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Kuban Cossacks seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmf... yeah, whatever... --> Guto ( Talking that smack will get you smacked)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Kuban Cossacks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
--> Guto ( Talk your ass off...)
Your recent editing history at Kuban Cossacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.
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. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Iryna, you seem to have a proclinity in making your opinion prevalent over the policy concerning bias, don't you? As an adult, litterate (I assume so) person, you should be aware that, while the term "policies" doesn't carry any point of view at all, leaving the question at the reader's interpretation, the term "horrors" carry a strong bias in the question of point of view, which I don't think is Wikipedia's purpose at all. Should I be blocked for "edit warring"? Fine. Block me! I think you should be blocked for blatant PROPAGANDA and violation of Wikipedia's neutral standards! User:Guto2003 Talk ya ass off...
An article that you have been involved in editing— Guards Tape—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TheImperios ( talk) 19:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jair Bolsonaro. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times, including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BDMKK ( talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Guto2003. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya ( 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) 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Bloods, 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. Thank you. SummerPhD
v2.0
04:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Florencia 13, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SummerPhD
v2.0
12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Kuban Cossacks. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The source used does not say that. If you think your perspective is relevant, find a
reliable source to back it up. I strongly suggest you read the reliable source policy first, because you are not going to find one that passes as reliable.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You're delusionally hypocritical, Iryna. By insdisting in the word "horrors", you're putting your own point of view and emotional stands as a true, "neutral" account of the facts. The reliable source policies seems to apply only one disagrees with you, and your last sentences speaks very much about your personal stand on this issue. Guto ( keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kuban Cossacks; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
One more such an action and I will take this to
the Administrators' edit warring board.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
~~ Guto ( keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)
Hello, comrade. The administrators at ProleWiki came across your user profile and wanted to formalize an invitation to participate in the work with us. We want to develop ProleWiki on the principles of democratic centralism and Marxism-Leninism. If you are interested in the project, please, feel free to create an account there and contact us! -- Felipe Forte ( have fun!) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Anti-communist terrorism has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a bad move. In the sources, "massacre" is a generally accepted word used when describing the event, which explains why in the prose of our article the event is called a massacre, and there are multiple other instances of the word "massacre". Therefore, "massacre" is the right
WP:DESCRIPTOR. Massacre is indeed a strong word, but please see
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view: If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
Another editor reverted the move. Sincerely—
Alalch E.
17:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
I agree with the poster above that your moves seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, if you do things like this again, you are likely to get blocked. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
move a page disruptively.
Jeppiz (
talk)
17:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Courcelles ( talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Courcelles (
talk)
18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove dates and years from articles. --
aktsu (
t /
c)
15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- aktsu ( t / c) 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Again, pleast stop removing years and dates from articles. --
aktsu (
t /
c)
08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You've been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guto2003; feel free to comment there. In addition, please read and respond to messages left on your talk page. If you've offered any justification for your removal of dates on citations, I don't see it. You've been repeatedly asked for a justification with no apparent response. If you need help using a talk page, please see Wikipedia:Talk page. – Luna Santin ( talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Guto2003. You have been the subject of a Aministrative incident report as the result of what appear to a vandalising edits on Wikipedia. In future if you have reasons to remove dates or references from articles, please provide explanations in the article discussion pages. However if you persist in making edits that appear to be vandalism, and/or failing to provide adequate reasons for your edits, you will be immediately blocked from further editing. Manning ( talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to
Christopher Hitchens, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's
categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's
verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add the above category to articles about Iranian politicians, unless there is verifiable information present in those articles that anti-communism was/is an important part of that person's political stance. The articles where you added this category, such as Saeed Jalili, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Parviz Davoodi, etc, do not mention anti-communism at all. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Nelson Mandela has been reverted, as it introduced
negative or controversial biographical material without providing a
reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be
sourced to address the issue of
libel. Thank you.
Logan (
talk)
21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Brotha Lynch Hung. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please stop adding categories about medical conditions without providing a reliable source. Active Banana (bananaphone 02:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Please show the sources said that Ho Chi Minh is an Anti-Revisionist.-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. (
✉→
BWilkins
←✎)
23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Do you really think that the edit summary you used here is appropriate for a major religious leader's page? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Your word choice in edit-summaries is at times juvenile. Grow up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The word choice employed by some Wikipedians (i.e. "dictator", "genocidal", "child eater", etc.) is "juvenile", not mine. Wikipedian opportunism and double standards is juvenile. ~~ Talk to me
~~ ;D
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Billy Graham comment on the page Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
at all your Citation Needed tag at Emma Goldman as her disillusionment with Soviet Russia is well known. It's sort of like demanding more proof that cigarette smoking is bad for your health. Oh well. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The tag was about the allegation of "repression, mismanagement, and corruption", which can clearly be defined as an expression of the personal point of view of the asshole who has written such a sentence. Every affirmation demands a reference. ;) ~~ Товарищ Гуто... Поговори со мной
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Miroslav (given name) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted you're edits, but maid it more clear the referencing.. (everything is referenced, I wrote the article, and nothing seems to have changed much since).. Don't worry, everything is referenced.. Secondly, while I see you're a communist, a good idea would not to identify yourself with the Soviet Union, it was a disaster. There is hope in Cuba tough, the socialist market economy will hopefully flourish there and the political system will be liberalized and further democratized :) ... Anyway, if anything else is left unclear just give a note on my talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to communism, "neutrality" don't mean shit to most "Wikipedians", ain't it, TIAYN? As they say, talk is cheap, but only in Wikipedia, bullshit talking is free. Wikipedia, a hotbed for assholes and shit talkers. Guto2003 ( talk) 10:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I'm Guto and your opinion doesn't mean shit to me. You talking outta your ass.
By the way, I'm sorry for the late response. Your comment may have gone unnoticed, since I have some better things to do than to be engaging in discussions in a content-free, unthrustworthy "encyclopedia". Guto2003 ( talk) 10:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC) You know me and your opinion still doesn't mean shit to me anyway.
I have completely reverted your edits because they were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times. Including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames. Regards, § DDima 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah? Fuck you. There are fascists all over that Euromaidan movement. Just check the ideology that guides most political parties involved in it, you fuck. ~~ User:Guto2003
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edits
like this are completely unacceptable. I will block you if such attack repeats.
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
23:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
8=====D (_(_|J
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Polish People's Republic may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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) 23:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Suharto. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. for edit warring WP:3RR noting the that the category you want to add is unsupported by the article content take it to the talk page to resolve Gnan garra 07:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
2011 may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"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) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, no worries.
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 01:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah... Guto2003 ( Come and get some!)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Rosner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGB. 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) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was so impressed with your performance that I opened an ANI topic about you. Please reply there.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sooo damn flattered... Thanks! Guto2003 Talk ya a** off
Hello, Guto2003. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on
Lil' Keke, but you didn't support your changes with a
citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning
how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you!
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
23:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "There were NOTHING "incidental" about Indian casualties in the removals. They were criminal acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I see a highly pro-American bias in your argumentation."
I confess to a pro-English language bias. With that in mind, I find that according to the definition of genocide, you are applying it as a contentious label.
The biological warfare involving smallpox was genocidal. The Indian Removal Act & Trail of Tears, while being acts of collective punishment, discrimination, ethnic cleansing, ethnic conflict, forced migration, human rights abuses, persecution, racism, & violence, were not genocidal as these were not an effort to extinguish those tribes. You therefore cannot call it a genocide under WP:NPOV. Others will continually revert it.
If you have a different opinion, take it to the Talk:Andrew Jackson & Talk:Martin Van Buren pages before again attempting these edits.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Martin Van Buren seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Martin Van Buren as
Category:Genocide perpetrators is a
contentious label.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Andrew Jackson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Andrew Jackson as
Category:Genocide perpetrators is a
contentious label.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. DMacks ( talk) 16:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Guto2003. 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)
Hello, I'm
Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Kuban Cossacks seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmf... yeah, whatever... --> Guto ( Talking that smack will get you smacked)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Kuban Cossacks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
--> Guto ( Talk your ass off...)
Your recent editing history at Kuban Cossacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.
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. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Iryna, you seem to have a proclinity in making your opinion prevalent over the policy concerning bias, don't you? As an adult, litterate (I assume so) person, you should be aware that, while the term "policies" doesn't carry any point of view at all, leaving the question at the reader's interpretation, the term "horrors" carry a strong bias in the question of point of view, which I don't think is Wikipedia's purpose at all. Should I be blocked for "edit warring"? Fine. Block me! I think you should be blocked for blatant PROPAGANDA and violation of Wikipedia's neutral standards! User:Guto2003 Talk ya ass off...
An article that you have been involved in editing— Guards Tape—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TheImperios ( talk) 19:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jair Bolsonaro. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times, including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BDMKK ( talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Guto2003. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya ( 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) 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Bloods, 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. Thank you. SummerPhD
v2.0
04:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Florencia 13, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SummerPhD
v2.0
12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Kuban Cossacks. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The source used does not say that. If you think your perspective is relevant, find a
reliable source to back it up. I strongly suggest you read the reliable source policy first, because you are not going to find one that passes as reliable.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You're delusionally hypocritical, Iryna. By insdisting in the word "horrors", you're putting your own point of view and emotional stands as a true, "neutral" account of the facts. The reliable source policies seems to apply only one disagrees with you, and your last sentences speaks very much about your personal stand on this issue. Guto ( keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kuban Cossacks; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
One more such an action and I will take this to
the Administrators' edit warring board.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
~~ Guto ( keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)
Hello, comrade. The administrators at ProleWiki came across your user profile and wanted to formalize an invitation to participate in the work with us. We want to develop ProleWiki on the principles of democratic centralism and Marxism-Leninism. If you are interested in the project, please, feel free to create an account there and contact us! -- Felipe Forte ( have fun!) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Anti-communist terrorism has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a bad move. In the sources, "massacre" is a generally accepted word used when describing the event, which explains why in the prose of our article the event is called a massacre, and there are multiple other instances of the word "massacre". Therefore, "massacre" is the right
WP:DESCRIPTOR. Massacre is indeed a strong word, but please see
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view: If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
Another editor reverted the move. Sincerely—
Alalch E.
17:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
I agree with the poster above that your moves seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, if you do things like this again, you are likely to get blocked. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
move a page disruptively.
Jeppiz (
talk)
17:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Courcelles ( talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Courcelles (
talk)
18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))