|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
You have been page-blocked for three months from Habsburg monarchy and House of Habsburg together with their talkpages for bludgeoning and unreasonableness. Please see this ANI thread and specifically my comment in it. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC).
- I'm glad to see that you've come to your senses in reverting your own edit on
Han dynasty (strange behavior for someone telling someone else to grow up), but am wholly unsurprised that you got page blocked for three months on something else. Charming.
Pericles of Athens
Talk 21:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Manchild, you got nothing better to do other than looking at my user page, buddy? You need to stop acting like a kid and start to grow up, because no one cares about your edits. Cheers. GenoV84 ( talk) 21:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, blocks have expired one month ago. You're always late. GenoV84 ( talk) 21:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining this edit, and how it is a "last good revision"? As discussed on the talk page there are several issues with the version that you restored, including verifiability, WP:OR, and MOS concerns. You're more than welcome to join the discussion on the talk page, but the version you reverted to is based on recent material added by an IP that has several issues and is not a consensus or stable version of the article and your edit summary is vague as to why it was made. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
Aoidh, sorry for being late but I don't have much time these days. I didn't check the
talk page on Zen before restoring content, I thought that there was no issue with the previous revision. I hope you are doing well.
GenoV84 (
talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, don't apologize for not being on Wikipedia 24/7. :) I initially thought the issues with those changes might be purely stylistic as well (e.g. MOS:WE) and went to make those adjustments, but since I have the book cited checked it I saw the WP:V issues as well. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shaitan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. You left a comment on my talk page which is incorrect. The edit in question from April did have a very clear accompanying description which was "Undoing vandalism by user GenoV84", i.e. you. For the record, this was because you altered the page's dating style, without discussion, to BCE/CE. Having examined your recent edits of December 21st it appears you have done the same thing again. Whilst I have no doubt you have added good content as well, the MOS:ERA (see manual of style) guidelines are clear that arbitrary changes to the a pages style should not be made unless certain conditions are met and as such can be reverted. I will once again reverse these changes to the dating style in line with this. Theworks84 ( talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: Yes, I have added good content as well, and my edit was constructive, contrary to what you claimed in the edit summary. That's why your edit was reverted. Try to explain which are the conditions that you were referring to regarding the
MOS:ERA policy.
GenoV84 (
talk) 19:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again. It seems that you have for a third time in recent months altered the dating style used on the Greco-Buddhism page. You have explained that your reasoning behind this is because Greco- Budhism existed before the ‘invention of Christianity’.
- I could go into detail why the above comment doesn't make much sense. However, frankly, its irrelevant what either of us feels in this scenario. What matters is that this page has used a particular style, consistently, for many, many years. The MOS is very clear on this:
- ‘Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable’
- I’ve highlighted in bold the last point as your actions could quite easily be interpreted as an attempt to start an edit war, which I refuse to engage in further. I will revert the style changes to the page for a third and final time, after which I will take it to the admins if you continue to make the same unnecessary changes.
Theworks84 (
talk) 11:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: If you think that it doesn't make sense, it means that you never read a history book on Ancient Greece and Ancient India in the first place. So sad.
GenoV84 (
talk) 17:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending comment is noted but I am not taking the bait and will remain civil. You should try doing the same.
Theworks84 (
talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Theworks84: Don't play games; you accused me of vandalism out of nowhere while I never insulted you throughout this entire discussion, and you also stated here that my edits were fine, actually. Try to make peace with yourself.
- You got nothing better to do on New Year's Eve other than complaining on my Talk page? 😂
- Get a life, bro. GenoV84 ( talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending comment is noted but I am not taking the bait and will remain civil. You should try doing the same.
Theworks84 (
talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: If you think that it doesn't make sense, it means that you never read a history book on Ancient Greece and Ancient India in the first place. So sad.
GenoV84 (
talk) 17:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, GenoV84! Regarding your recent reversion at Jihadism, I'm wondering what part of WP:COMMONTERM you're referring to in your edit summary. Thanks, Graham ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
You have been page-blocked for three months from Habsburg monarchy and House of Habsburg together with their talkpages for bludgeoning and unreasonableness. Please see this ANI thread and specifically my comment in it. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC).
- I'm glad to see that you've come to your senses in reverting your own edit on
Han dynasty (strange behavior for someone telling someone else to grow up), but am wholly unsurprised that you got page blocked for three months on something else. Charming.
Pericles of Athens
Talk 21:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Manchild, you got nothing better to do other than looking at my user page, buddy? You need to stop acting like a kid and start to grow up, because no one cares about your edits. Cheers. GenoV84 ( talk) 21:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, blocks have expired one month ago. You're always late. GenoV84 ( talk) 21:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining this edit, and how it is a "last good revision"? As discussed on the talk page there are several issues with the version that you restored, including verifiability, WP:OR, and MOS concerns. You're more than welcome to join the discussion on the talk page, but the version you reverted to is based on recent material added by an IP that has several issues and is not a consensus or stable version of the article and your edit summary is vague as to why it was made. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
Aoidh, sorry for being late but I don't have much time these days. I didn't check the
talk page on Zen before restoring content, I thought that there was no issue with the previous revision. I hope you are doing well.
GenoV84 (
talk) 22:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, don't apologize for not being on Wikipedia 24/7. :) I initially thought the issues with those changes might be purely stylistic as well (e.g. MOS:WE) and went to make those adjustments, but since I have the book cited checked it I saw the WP:V issues as well. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shaitan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. You left a comment on my talk page which is incorrect. The edit in question from April did have a very clear accompanying description which was "Undoing vandalism by user GenoV84", i.e. you. For the record, this was because you altered the page's dating style, without discussion, to BCE/CE. Having examined your recent edits of December 21st it appears you have done the same thing again. Whilst I have no doubt you have added good content as well, the MOS:ERA (see manual of style) guidelines are clear that arbitrary changes to the a pages style should not be made unless certain conditions are met and as such can be reverted. I will once again reverse these changes to the dating style in line with this. Theworks84 ( talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: Yes, I have added good content as well, and my edit was constructive, contrary to what you claimed in the edit summary. That's why your edit was reverted. Try to explain which are the conditions that you were referring to regarding the
MOS:ERA policy.
GenoV84 (
talk) 19:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again. It seems that you have for a third time in recent months altered the dating style used on the Greco-Buddhism page. You have explained that your reasoning behind this is because Greco- Budhism existed before the ‘invention of Christianity’.
- I could go into detail why the above comment doesn't make much sense. However, frankly, its irrelevant what either of us feels in this scenario. What matters is that this page has used a particular style, consistently, for many, many years. The MOS is very clear on this:
- ‘Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable’
- I’ve highlighted in bold the last point as your actions could quite easily be interpreted as an attempt to start an edit war, which I refuse to engage in further. I will revert the style changes to the page for a third and final time, after which I will take it to the admins if you continue to make the same unnecessary changes.
Theworks84 (
talk) 11:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: If you think that it doesn't make sense, it means that you never read a history book on Ancient Greece and Ancient India in the first place. So sad.
GenoV84 (
talk) 17:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending comment is noted but I am not taking the bait and will remain civil. You should try doing the same.
Theworks84 (
talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Theworks84: Don't play games; you accused me of vandalism out of nowhere while I never insulted you throughout this entire discussion, and you also stated here that my edits were fine, actually. Try to make peace with yourself.
- You got nothing better to do on New Year's Eve other than complaining on my Talk page? 😂
- Get a life, bro. GenoV84 ( talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending comment is noted but I am not taking the bait and will remain civil. You should try doing the same.
Theworks84 (
talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Theworks84: If you think that it doesn't make sense, it means that you never read a history book on Ancient Greece and Ancient India in the first place. So sad.
GenoV84 (
talk) 17:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, GenoV84! Regarding your recent reversion at Jihadism, I'm wondering what part of WP:COMMONTERM you're referring to in your edit summary. Thanks, Graham ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)