The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am from Ukraine. I know that among the victims is a citizen of Ukraine and I want to write an article about it in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. But I do not know about it. Could you give me information of who was a citizen of Ukraine among the dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOSFERATU ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your good background edits on the run-up to the movement, and for the section headings and page layout. The earlier 20th century history is important and was lacking on the page, and the page layout was lacking a bit. I did remove the Watts section (the riots had no effect on this movement, which was already well underway before Watts). Nice work, thanks again. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've just reverted your changes to this article again. You are editing referenced material pretty carelessly - for instance, changing "Allied combat personnel" (which covers soldiers, sailors and airmen) to "Allied troops" (which can cover only soldiers). From memory, the source which said that " This attitude was reinforced by the indoctrination of young people" refered to school students, etc, yet for no reason you changed this to "recruits" which is totally different. Other edits were just as careless. This is getting close to vandalism, and please stop it. Nick-D ( talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm SharabSalam. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, USS Cole bombing, 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. SharabSalam ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a source for your edit. During Japan's Aleutian Islands Campaign in Alaska in June 1942, a U.S. civilian was killed during the bombing of Dutch Harbor. The Japanese invaded the island of Attu, killing a white U.S. civilian and interned 45 Alaska Native Aleuts in Japan, in which 19 died during the rest of the war -- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see where you've received a warning about edit warring. Why do you believe I might receive one when you haven't? Konli17 ( talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit taken aback that something so basic needs to be explained to a user who has been here six years and has 12,000 article edits, but unless you have strong evidence someone is being misquoted, you should never re-phrase quoted text as you did here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your upload File:Northern States in general.png and think it's a great addition to the Northern United States article. However, it appears to be missing the states of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, which are mentioned in the article. I was just wondering if you would mind adding them to the image? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 08:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
My edit was not vandalism. Don't call my edits vandalism if they are not. Thank you.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 00:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Major film studio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please get your sources right before you assume. The WB site here even said "Warner Bros. Pictures". King Shadeed November 10, 2019 at 9:46 p.m. EST
I just wanted to say that I appreciate your reconsidering your edit at 1968 Washington, D.C. riots after I reverted it. I saw your thanking me for the revert.
Not a whole lot of Wikipedia editors take kindly to their edits being reverted, which is understandable to a degree. Nice to see some impartiality for a change. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've got a long running history of adding claims to cited material which isn't supported by the existing references. This edit is an example, where you claimed that the source referred to the number of deaths as those who were "instantly" killed. It does no such thing, with the source's explanation of the table stating that it refers to "The number of total casualties". You made a similar edit to a FA [1] here, with the sources given also not supporting your assertion that the casualties are only those killed in the initial bomb blast. At best, this is very sloppy editing. At worst, it's a deliberate falsification. There are several similar complaints from myself and others above. I will block you from editing I see this continue - please take time to check your sources, and get the details right. Nick-D ( talk) 00:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed your report at WP:ANEW regarding the situation at Invasion of Quebec (1775).
You are just as culpable for the edit war as the other editor is. I note that the page is in the status quo ante situation: it's back like it was before your first, bold change. You made a bold change, and it was reverted; it's now time to discuss the situation. Please make sure you have reached consensus at the article's talk page ( Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)) before trying to readd the material.
If you were to add the material without discussion, it would be a clear case of edit warring and grounds for at least a partial block from the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 185.69.144.212 ( talk) 06:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Regarding this revert, the statements cited to "400 things cops know" failed verification; see Talk:Civilian/Archive 1#400_Things_Cops_Know. As far as I can tell, nothing in that source supports the cited text at all (and it looks like someone else previously pointed out that issue, but was ignored.) Please respond there with a specific quote showing what part of the cited text supports the contested material before restoring it again. I'll also point out that, by my count, at least four people have objected to your proposed lead paragraph, while only you seem to support it, and the objections have been ongoing for its entire time in the article, so it has never had consensus. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Back in May 2015, with this edit you added an uncited sentence about violent criminals to the lead section of Violent crime. I want to understand where your source material is found because focusing up front on the criminals, and not the crime, discounts the victims' experience and potentially introduces bias to the article. Please feel free to join the discussion about Violent criminals. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
See Talk. While I applaud the research, (although it may open a can of worms), I feel that the name change did not take into account the conflict with the main Medal of Honor article. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you are aware of the edit-warring conventions, so I won't post a generic message here. Please quit it. I'm trying to comply with the clear consensus position developed on the talk page - to which you are a contributor, and on that point may I refer you to WP:INDENT? - where your views are not gaining wide traction, to put it mildly. -- Pete ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I have reported you for what IMHO is edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:PBS (Result: ) — PBS ( talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the edit warring noticeboard discussion initiated by me:
Is posted in that section ( diff):
Result: User:XXzoonamiXX is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
— PBS ( talk) 22:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Last chance. You have not obtained consensus for your recent reverts. Please self-revert or I'll hand this over to admin enforcement. -- Pete ( talk) 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. I've created your talk archive page as requested by archiving all discussions earlier than this year. If you wish to add further to the archive, just cut from this talk page and paste in the archive above the {{abottom}} template. Mjroots ( talk) 11:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi XXzoonamiXX! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello, I'm Inexpiable. 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 Capital punishment by the United States federal government 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. Inexpiable ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Provisional Irish Republican Army has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to Bobby Sands has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek ( talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irish Canadians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley. 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) 06:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Troubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am from Ukraine. I know that among the victims is a citizen of Ukraine and I want to write an article about it in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. But I do not know about it. Could you give me information of who was a citizen of Ukraine among the dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOSFERATU ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your good background edits on the run-up to the movement, and for the section headings and page layout. The earlier 20th century history is important and was lacking on the page, and the page layout was lacking a bit. I did remove the Watts section (the riots had no effect on this movement, which was already well underway before Watts). Nice work, thanks again. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've just reverted your changes to this article again. You are editing referenced material pretty carelessly - for instance, changing "Allied combat personnel" (which covers soldiers, sailors and airmen) to "Allied troops" (which can cover only soldiers). From memory, the source which said that " This attitude was reinforced by the indoctrination of young people" refered to school students, etc, yet for no reason you changed this to "recruits" which is totally different. Other edits were just as careless. This is getting close to vandalism, and please stop it. Nick-D ( talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm SharabSalam. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, USS Cole bombing, 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. SharabSalam ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a source for your edit. During Japan's Aleutian Islands Campaign in Alaska in June 1942, a U.S. civilian was killed during the bombing of Dutch Harbor. The Japanese invaded the island of Attu, killing a white U.S. civilian and interned 45 Alaska Native Aleuts in Japan, in which 19 died during the rest of the war -- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see where you've received a warning about edit warring. Why do you believe I might receive one when you haven't? Konli17 ( talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit taken aback that something so basic needs to be explained to a user who has been here six years and has 12,000 article edits, but unless you have strong evidence someone is being misquoted, you should never re-phrase quoted text as you did here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your upload File:Northern States in general.png and think it's a great addition to the Northern United States article. However, it appears to be missing the states of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, which are mentioned in the article. I was just wondering if you would mind adding them to the image? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 08:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
My edit was not vandalism. Don't call my edits vandalism if they are not. Thank you.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 00:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Major film studio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please get your sources right before you assume. The WB site here even said "Warner Bros. Pictures". King Shadeed November 10, 2019 at 9:46 p.m. EST
I just wanted to say that I appreciate your reconsidering your edit at 1968 Washington, D.C. riots after I reverted it. I saw your thanking me for the revert.
Not a whole lot of Wikipedia editors take kindly to their edits being reverted, which is understandable to a degree. Nice to see some impartiality for a change. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've got a long running history of adding claims to cited material which isn't supported by the existing references. This edit is an example, where you claimed that the source referred to the number of deaths as those who were "instantly" killed. It does no such thing, with the source's explanation of the table stating that it refers to "The number of total casualties". You made a similar edit to a FA [1] here, with the sources given also not supporting your assertion that the casualties are only those killed in the initial bomb blast. At best, this is very sloppy editing. At worst, it's a deliberate falsification. There are several similar complaints from myself and others above. I will block you from editing I see this continue - please take time to check your sources, and get the details right. Nick-D ( talk) 00:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed your report at WP:ANEW regarding the situation at Invasion of Quebec (1775).
You are just as culpable for the edit war as the other editor is. I note that the page is in the status quo ante situation: it's back like it was before your first, bold change. You made a bold change, and it was reverted; it's now time to discuss the situation. Please make sure you have reached consensus at the article's talk page ( Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)) before trying to readd the material.
If you were to add the material without discussion, it would be a clear case of edit warring and grounds for at least a partial block from the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 185.69.144.212 ( talk) 06:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Regarding this revert, the statements cited to "400 things cops know" failed verification; see Talk:Civilian/Archive 1#400_Things_Cops_Know. As far as I can tell, nothing in that source supports the cited text at all (and it looks like someone else previously pointed out that issue, but was ignored.) Please respond there with a specific quote showing what part of the cited text supports the contested material before restoring it again. I'll also point out that, by my count, at least four people have objected to your proposed lead paragraph, while only you seem to support it, and the objections have been ongoing for its entire time in the article, so it has never had consensus. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Back in May 2015, with this edit you added an uncited sentence about violent criminals to the lead section of Violent crime. I want to understand where your source material is found because focusing up front on the criminals, and not the crime, discounts the victims' experience and potentially introduces bias to the article. Please feel free to join the discussion about Violent criminals. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
See Talk. While I applaud the research, (although it may open a can of worms), I feel that the name change did not take into account the conflict with the main Medal of Honor article. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you are aware of the edit-warring conventions, so I won't post a generic message here. Please quit it. I'm trying to comply with the clear consensus position developed on the talk page - to which you are a contributor, and on that point may I refer you to WP:INDENT? - where your views are not gaining wide traction, to put it mildly. -- Pete ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I have reported you for what IMHO is edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:PBS (Result: ) — PBS ( talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the edit warring noticeboard discussion initiated by me:
Is posted in that section ( diff):
Result: User:XXzoonamiXX is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
— PBS ( talk) 22:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Last chance. You have not obtained consensus for your recent reverts. Please self-revert or I'll hand this over to admin enforcement. -- Pete ( talk) 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. I've created your talk archive page as requested by archiving all discussions earlier than this year. If you wish to add further to the archive, just cut from this talk page and paste in the archive above the {{abottom}} template. Mjroots ( talk) 11:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi XXzoonamiXX! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello, I'm Inexpiable. 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 Capital punishment by the United States federal government 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. Inexpiable ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Provisional Irish Republican Army has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to Bobby Sands has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek ( talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irish Canadians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley. 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) 06:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Troubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)