User talk:Pktlaurence

Ireland edits

Hi. I'm sorry to see you got blocked, particularly as discussion on Lordship of Ireland seemed to be drawing to a close. I know it's not a very nice situation to be in, but it's only for 24 hours which isn't a long time, so hopefully that will be enough for things to calm down a bit. I realise you're frustrated that things on these two articles aren't going your way, but the topic of Irish history and politics is, to put it as mildly as possible, controversial so it's best to try and keep discussion on the talk page and escalate things up from there, including possibly raising the issue at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If you want my view, I'd love a drive up the County Antrim coast, and the road through the Cork and Kerry mountains between Glengarriff and Killarney is wonderful - and they'll still be there when you and I are dead and gone, and that's where I prefer my Ireland-related editing and reading to be focused on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to International Association of the Congo, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pktlaurence. 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)[reply]

February 2017

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of 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 legally required for attribution. 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 (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). 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 pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sire, I am really grateful and appreciate your warm reminder, that I almost forgot my act actually ruined the history. My most sincere apologies are delivered here. However, I found the page "Enlightened Spain blah blah blah" in a dire need to be moved to a more concise simple and straightforward title 'Bourbon Spain', and the damn move button keeps telling me that the latter is already occupied by a redirection page with the same name, so if you would kindly tell me what to do about this, you will be even more appreciated. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the instructions located at WP:RM#CM to request a move. Sro23 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to inform you that my move does not fall into the category of a controversial move.
'There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title'
The existing page in my target title is simply just a redirect page with nothing. But still I could not make the change. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

???!!!

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for improperly moving pages, as you did at Bourbon Spain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This block is to prevent further damage to the site with your edits. Please review WP:MOVE, WP:MOS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:RM. When you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of how and when to move pages, and you can assure us you will do it properly (attaining consensus beforehand, etc), then you can be unblocked. If this block expires before then and you continue your disruption, you will be blocked indefinitely (or until such a time that you can be trusted to edit). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland in World War II

Hi. I suggest you read Military history of Finland during World War II. Germany had refrained from supporting Finland during the Winter War (due to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), unlike the Allies (and neutrals like Norway, Sweden, and Italy), who sent arms and other aid. The German conquest of Denmark and Norway clearly isolated Finland from non-German controlled countries and limited Finland's options. Not saying that Finland wouldn't have joined Germany in the attack on the Soviet Union eventually anyway, but the fact that Germany controlled the access to Finland made that much more likely by essentially cutting off contact between the Allies and Finland. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pktlaurence. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Formulaonewiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Formulaone wiki 00:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to message you here instead of on the discussion because it's really washing out the relevant discussion. I think you are severly mistaken over the arrangements of governance in Guernsey, in particular with regard to healthcare and funding etc. Guernsey receives no financial support from the UK government for any of its sectors, including healthcare. The States of Guernsey decide on their own taxes and social security, and those locally raised taxes alone fund the local healthcare system and other state-funded infrastructure without support from the UK. As such, there is no reciprocal agreement between the UK and the islands, meaning residents visiting the other country/territory cannot make use of the other's healthcare without paying out of their own pocket. —Formulaone wiki 17:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki:FOA thanks for your kind redirection. Btw you guys don't use the revered NHS?! Also could you please kindly provide a more detailed explanation to 'they mostly just get on with things on their own'? Any specific examples? I will wait for your answers before I provide my replies towards your previous message. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By that I mean the day-to-day running of the Bailiwick is handled entirely by the States of Guernsey without UK government interference. Like I've explained, the UK government only gets involved where the islands require defence (i.e. in the event of war) and international relations (so the most recent example would be Brexit, which has influenced Guernsey's special agreement with the EU to be part of the customs area and benefit from free movement but not becoming part of the EU). Occasionally the UK government attempts to put political pressure on Guernsey to change its tax regime and change some of the laws surrounding freedom of information about who-owns-what-company (so people like Jimmy Carr can't hide their dubious financial arrangements so easily), but that tends to be limited to just lip-service; the UK government is unable to force Guernsey to change its laws and so Guernsey remains a low tax jurisdiction and fully in control of its tax system. So, by and large, the only recent times the UK government has actually interfered with Guernsey just getting on with their own thing has been indirectly through Brexit or directly but ineffectively through occasionally asking them nicely (though fruitlessly) to be a bit less of a tax haven.

Regarding the NHS question — indeed, we do not have it here! It's a shame but as we don't contribute any taxes toward the UK government pot, they understandably don't let us just leech off their wonderful free healthcare service. We have a sort of local tax-funded equivalent called the Medical Specialist Group (MSG) to cover more expensive specialist surgeries etc. so people aren't financially crippled by an unfortunate life event, but it doesn't cover anywhere near as much as the NHS (such as GP appointments, minor visits to A&E etc.) so a lot of people get private health insurance. Over a decade ago, the MSG and the NHS had a reciprocal agreement meaning UK citizens were covered should they need medical care while in Guernsey (and vice versa), but unfortunately that agreement ended and now in the event that you're not in your home country you'll have to front the costs of healthcare yourself.

I apologise if things have gotten a bit frosty over on the discussion page, I just feel like some of your arguments were based on false assumptions and so was frustratedly trying to correct them without going off on a tangent from the purpose of the discussion. I hope the above answers some of your questions, but let me know if I've missed anything. —Formulaone wiki 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the NHS issue, perhaps integrating more into England might not sound like an idea that's too bad. Like being a new county in England, you pay your tax to her Majesty, but you can earn seats in Westminster and services of British physicians (consider them best on earth). I personally enjoyed a few services from NHS when I was studying in Britain, and I found no reason not to call it the best (system) on earth.

BTW, you did miss something😂. My main point was actually to ask you about what exactly does the Islandic privy council do? I mean, seriously speaking they can't sunbath on Jersey beaches 24/7, right? Pktlaurence (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Maybe I wasn't clear: The island doesn't have its own Privy Council, so any reference I made to a Privy Council was referring to the UK government's Privy Council which is supposedly responsible for stepping in in extreme circumstances to ensure the 'good government' of the islands, but this has very little practical meaning anymore and the supposed power they actually still have to legislate for the islands in such situations is highly disputed. While NHS healthcare would be wonderful for islanders to have, there are several reasons why Guernsey doesn't just defer to being part of the UK or part of England and paying tax to HMRC, starting with some very complicated constitutional stuff (our whole legal system is founded in Norman-French law, not English law and so it would require the overhaul of centuries of case law precedent and legislation), the removal of an entire cultural and national identity, and probably the main reason — money: Guernsey significantly benefits from its separate tax regime and it's distinct legislation surrounding the establishment of companies, structure and reserved powers in trust funds etc. It's not a coincidence that the largest sector on the island is finance! Companies and wealthy individuals will pay a lot to come here and pay lower tax than other places, and the States of Guernsey benefit from that too much to throw it away for healthcare. —Formulaone wiki 19:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB Guernsey is also quite an appealing place for companies and individuals to locate their financial affairs as it's still one of the 'good' tax havens on most lists due to their attempts to comply with at least some of the EU's tax avoidance regulations (as opposed to Bermuda which is put on a 'black list' of bad tax havens) and so they can come here without badly tarnishing their reputation. To this end, a lot of International/Offshore branches of banks (Santander, Natwest, RBS etc.) are based there alongside many finance companies. —Formulaone wiki 20:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So basically the Brit government almost does nothing to the CD isles, Islanders can not enjoy any social welfare when they go to Britannia mainland and also vice versa, the only thing they have do with Britain is that they use British passports, and the only thing Brit government does to Guernsey is to talk diplomacy on their behalf? Alright, maybe being a new English county doesn't really sound like a bad idea.

BTW, I sorta could understand your hometown pride since we both come from small towns in similar situation. I sorta envy the way how the CD archipelagos are governed—if our sovereign could try not to (or less, at the very least) stick their noses in such an anschluss-esque manner. Assuming you know what happened last Summer. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I know, you guys run the continental and the Brits run the common, right? Well, and I know that offshoring thing also. My clan owned quite a sizable plot of land in the rurals (land is an extremely valuable commodity here!), so our elders regged a shell corp. and then actually offshored it in Guernsey. That was decades, way before I was born, though. That was approximately high cold war, when we're still flying UJ ensigns.Pktlaurence (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of change of law... Yeah. Last spring, our imbecilic puppet government tried to change one law quasi-forcefully. Just damn bloody one. And I assume you know what happened following in June. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I hope you can see why having some other clueless editor labelling my attempts at explaining how little influence the UK government has over the Crown Dependencies as 'silly nationalism' was rather irksome when I was just trying to give an honest explanation. We're definitely in a better situation than many similar territories with ties to sovereign states. I can't say I'm all too familiar with your situation, but I certainly sympathise with living under a bad government. —Formulaone wiki 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki:At least you know our government is imbecile and abysmal. BTW, do you think ye olde Islanders are like territories in personal unions with HM, like in the case of pre-war Iceland? Pktlaurence (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know very much about pre-war Iceland, but having read the personal union article I'd say it certainly bears some resemblance of the relationship between Guernsey and the UK. Perhaps not quite to the same extent, given that Guernsey requires the UK to represent its interests at certain international meetings where it has no seat (e.g. the UN). Additionally, perhaps the fact that we get dragged out with them as a result of Brexit suggests at least some, though relatively small, level of being too interlinked — and probably more than required for it to be a mere personal union. —Formulaone wiki 11:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-war Iceland were also diplomatically represented by Denmark, and the nominal commander of their local army is also the Danish king. Most personal unions also work in the similar MilDip mechanisms. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you warring again now? The RfC isn't complete -- and either way, everything else looks on course to be separated out anyway so why do it regardless? —Formulaone wiki 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: And I think listing them inside the sub-list is a very respectful way to treat their differences with uk mainland. We already have overwhelming consensus, but it has already been a week and im still yet to see any changes. I once suggested before the changes of RfC are implemented, its best for things to be unified before the big change. And i think its you who started warring first by undoing my edits. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pktlaurence reported by User:United States Man (Result: ). Thank you. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tlatelolco massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1968 Olympics. 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) 06:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:H&K HK433 lateral view.png

Thanks for uploading File:H&K HK433 lateral view.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You've been around long enough (and blocked twice for it) to know better than to start edit wars, as you've done at Kingdom of Prussia and Prussia. You need to justify your proposed changes on the talk page, not try to force them through regardless of opposition from other editors. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia and Kingdom of Prussia

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on these articles, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article{s} generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

In one of your edit summaries, you point out that WP:BRD is not policy -- that is correct. However, it has npt prevented editors from being blocked from editing for refusing to it follow it as a Wikipedia best proactice. It is in your interest to discuss your changes on the articles talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infoboxes

Hello, I reverted your recent edit to Internal conflict in Myanmar in compliance with MOS:FLAGS, specifically this section. TL;DR: Using the full name of a country makes it easier for editors to navigate if they are not familiar with a country's flag or abbreviation. For example, a common mistake is confusing Switzerland's abbreviation CH with China's abbreviation CN. Using full country names avoids this. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

French conquest of Algeria

added a link pointing to Louis d'Orléans

Presidio

added a link pointing to Native Americans

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French conquest of Algeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis d'Orléans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Your edit to 2021 Myanmar protests 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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 Myanmar protests. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at 2021 Myanmar protests. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 Myanmar protests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 Myanmar protests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Again, you have both me and CentreLeftRight reverting you, so the onus is on you to stop and discuss. You will find yourself at ANI if you continue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshir conflict

Do not remove maintenance tags until issues are resolved please, see on when to remove WP:WNTRMT Viewsridge (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To only put the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" in the Belligerents section is misleading. The republic is factuallöy defunct; it only exists as a rallying point for several pro-republican / anti-Taliban groups. The actual belligerents are, as of now, the NRF and the Hazara groups. Both operate without contact to each other. The Hazaras are already covered in the unit section as well - see "Pro-republican militias in Wardak and Daikundi". Applodion (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you ever heard of the case of Taiwan, but as long as the republic still controls territory, it still exists technically, even if as a rump state. I don't think it is misleading, as the situation somewhat resembles the case between Republic of China and People's Republic of China, which the ROC still maintains effective control over one single province of China technically. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan still exists as a rump state, at least throughout the Panjshir battle. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is literally the worst comparison you could take; Taiwan still has an entire government, landmass, economy, military, etc.. The Islamic Republic has no land left, no functioning government, no economy. It only has some supportive militias. You know, dozens upon dozens of articles for military conflicts include certain armed groups in the "Belligerents" section for this very reason - even if they are affiliated with a country / state. As you got into a lot of conflicts over infoboxes previously (judging from your talk page), I feel like that your position in this regard is not widely shared. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Hazara groups are indpendent because the sources cited in the article say so. Applodion (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No land left? The Panjshir Province doesn't exist? And don't make judgements out of your own personal feelings. This is Wikipedia. I don't see anybody else who support your position yet. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that the Panjshir Province was controlled by the NRF, right? The NRF was formally led by Saleh, the self-proclaimed President of the Republic, but it was not a replica of the republic. The republic itself did not govern Panjshir Province because it had collapsed when Kabul fell. Applodion (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Independent. So I did respect their nature of independence. I didn't put them under the NRF. I put them under the 'independent militia' section. Please pay attention. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your organization of the units section is a complete mess. You put the NRF as the one under which the remnants of the armed forces are grouped, despite the fact that ex-soldiers also fight alongside the Hazaras and thus not as part of the NRF. On the other side, you put the Hazara groups equal to Massoud's militia, even though Massoud's militia was part of the NRF, while the Hazaras are not. You also removed the special forces and commandos for some reason. Applodion (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is even worse. Massoud's militia was not indepedent. It was part of the NRF. Applodion (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok for you if I put the Massoudist militia under the NRF? The special force and commando section is far too as they're all remnants of the afghan armed force. Triple bullet tiers are far too much for an infobox. And most ANA remnants fought under the banner of NRF, those you've mentioned are exceptional cases. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be. Your organization is the very reason why it is complete chaos right now and we cannot include the commandos - despite the fact that they are arguably among the most important army troops involved in this conflict. The issue remains that Afghan National Security Forces remnants are fighting as part of militias as well. Trying to split everything up as you do completely wrecks the actual setup of the groups in this conflict.
In addition, what the heck is "Local Panjshiri militia" supposed to be? The only Panjshiri militia was Massoud's. There were other groups around Panjshir, but these were not Panjshiri.
That's why we had the NRF and Hazaras as Belligerents. In this way, all units in the unit section could be included in both the NRF and the Hazara factions. Applodion (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Massoud's militia suddenly "Massoudist" and "Tajik"? "Massoudist" suggests there is some ideological alignment which is false, and Tajik is unsourced. Applodion (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, can't we simply go back how the infobox was? It was stable, understandable, well-sourced, and somewhat ok-ish organized. Applodion (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 'Other militia around Panjshir'. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These minor adjustments do not change the basic fact that the infobox includes stuff that is simply false as of now: The republic is not the main Belligerent. The important commandos and special forces are excluded. Several groups are mislabelled. The army remnants in the militias are excluded. Applodion (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of massoud's men are Tajikis. BTW, if you've ever been to Afghanistan, you'll know that the Massoud clan has quite a personal cult there. His late daddy's portraits were literally everywhere. But, if you insist I guess I'll be ok with the term 'Ahmad Massoud's militia', although it's better keep the ethnicity part because they're mostly Tajik as a matter of fact. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Massoudist" and "Tajik" are still not sourced, whatever you think about it.
I just don't understand why you scramble around all this content even though it was previously just much better. Applodion (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was that both the hazaras and the NRF fought in the name of the Republic. So by using Republic you can include both Tajik NRF and them Hazzies. You can't neglect the fact that Panjshir valley existed, and as long as the republic still controls territory it continues to exist. For the minority of ANA remnants who fought under the Hazaras, I don't think we should care about the labelling that much since they're really...a minority. All is well as long as we mention 'republic armed force remnants'. All who had previously served the republic's armed force can be included by this umbrella term. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can make concessions, but you have to respect the fact that the republic still exists as long as it controls some territory, and that both the NRF and the Hazzies fought in the name of it. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined how the previous structure was logically better (as it included more groups and gave a more accurate view of the reality on the ground), and you counter with your personal opinion on what you feel is better. So you decide that a minority is not noteworthy? Just like that? Applodion (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will move the discussion to the article's talk page, so others can give their opinion. I don't think we will find a solution here. Applodion (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the discussion to Talk:Panjshir conflict#Infobox Applodion (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about personal opinions you seems to completely ignore the fact that the republic still exists. And, I didn't say they aren't noteworthy. I say that they're already included. 'Remnants' included everybody who has served the ANSF. That simple. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applodion I didn't see your message as I was typing. Please at least reply this first. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a short break from this discussion. I already noticed that I got somewhat emotional and confrontational, and that's not a good thing. I also felt that we made no progress in your dispute. Accordingly, I think that it's best to look if others have further ideas, etc., and then we can continue. That way, nothing gets out of hand. Applodion (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, your structure is logically erroneous as you assumed the republic has ceased to exist. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I based it on the assumption that the republic has fallen, not that it has ceased to exist. There is a difference between the two. However, we can continue this on the article's talk page. Applodion (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imperial Japanese Marines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IJN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ship prefix

Just a few comments regarding your recent editing activity on this page;

Per WP:BRD;
B- you Boldly make an edit,
R- it gets Reverted,
D- you then Discuss the matter on the article talk page, that is what it's there for.
If you just continue reverting, that is considered edit-warring, which is prohibited by policy and disruptive. (You can also consider this your prerequisite warning against edit-warring.)
I was removing content, the WP:ONUS is on the one seeking to add content to gain a consensus for it.
My edit was not "vandalism". Just because you disagree with someone, that does not justify you calling them a vandal, (which is a WP:NPA violation).
That content you re-added is not supported by a reliable source. I have now tagged it as such. If a source is not attached, you can expect that content to be removed, again.
Lastly, you've made at least 30 edits to that page today (so far). Please use the preview function to help reduce the number of edits you make, which in turn reduces the number of edits clogging up the page history and filling up the watchlists of editors watching this page. Thank you.

Have a nice day. - wolf 17:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already stopped reverting your edits after you kept your hands off the kriegsmarine content, so it's quite useless for you to leave this message here honestly, although I could not understand why you're deleting my language templates which i added diligently to improve the quality of the article. Frankly speaking, your edit that deleted the kriegsmarine reference is also subject to the BRD principle, so I would consider you as edit warring if you keep deleting it. Please bear in mind that there is no such thing called 're-add' in Wikipedia and I did not add that content personally at all. The content was there long before me, probably since time immemorial, and I only slightly adjusted the grammar for better uniformity. If you don't believe me, go and check the edit history. If you wish to delete it, please first start a discussion at the talk page and don't do anything impulsive before getting any consensus. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please check the edit history next time before making bold edits like this. Best regards. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My "hands", or someone else's, will be "back on" the kriegsmarine content, removing it, if a source is not added to it soon.

As per Template:Lang-en: "In most cases, there is no reason to use this template, unless you have a specific technical need for it.". (Please note that on the guidance page, this particular line is in bold.)

And speaking of "bold comments", you wrote: "there is no such thing called 're-add' in Wikipedia". Kind of an odd thing to say... if someone removes content from an article, then you cause said content to go back into the article, one might say you have "re-added" that content. (Many would, actually).

But this is semantics. I see you skipped over the more imortant policies & guidelines, such as edit warring and personal attacks. Didn't even mention wp:onus and obviously missed wp:preview completely, as it took you four edits just for your reply here alone, (and you're now up to 34 edits on that article). Seriously, before getting into anymore edit wars, give the article talk page a try. And give the preview function a try as well. Good luck and good day - wolf 18:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been entirely neglecting the contents of my reply, aren't you? The point is I never added those content to the page, and those content existed in the page long before I was here. I made some minor adjustments to it, and then you came in and deleted it. Your act of deletion is apparently a bold move because you removed preexisting content without any discussions and consensus, and then I reverted it, so if you keep reverting it it will be considered that it's actually YOU who're trying to start an edit war. Thank God you stopped it before I report you, but it would be nice if you can give the talk page a try next time, before trying to make any bold edits like this. BTW, I'm using smartphone to edit so I might not be able to do as you say, but as long as small edits doesn't break any rules I should be fine. Have a nice day. Pktlaurence (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been entirely neglecting the contents of my reply, aren't you?" - Erm, who is the pot and who is the kettle in this scenario?

"BTW, I'm using smartphone to edit so I might not be able to do as you say..." - Do... what? Use a talk page to discuss an issue? Find and add sources? Check your edits before saving them? Read and learn policies & guidelines? (Or just the ones I cited for you? BTW- have another one for ya, this one from the mos: WP:INDENT). Funny thing is, I edit almost exclusively from my phone, and I don't seem to struggle with editing the way you do, but keep at it, I'm sure it'll get easier for you. Have a nice day. - wolf 23:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for reminding me that you have been a pot calling the kettle black since the very beginning; You started a bold removal, violated the BRD norm and accused me of making bold edits. I do not have any need to start a discussion at all, instead you do (because you are the one who had made a bold removal without consensus, not me), yet you told me to start a discussion. Did you ever bother to check the edit histores to be aware of the fact that it was not me who added the content? Why should I provide citations when that content is not my work at all? Did you actually read the definition of BRD and other guidelines? Are you aware of the fact that you have breached BRD and that you have always been the pot, Sir? Pktlaurence (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make things clear:

1) You made a bold edit that is removing some preexisting content without prior consensus.

2) I reverted your edit and politely asked you to obtain consensus in discussion page before making such a bold move.

3) You ignored me and continued to revert your edits back.

4) Therefore you had been attempting to start an edit war.

Get it now? Ain't no rocket science. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now understand that your removal of Kriegsmarine reference without prior consensus is a bold edit, if not vandalism at all, Sir? Pktlaurence (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, thanks for reminding me that you have been a pot calling the kettle black since the very beginning"
- Well it seems that particular idiom went right over your head. I didn't call you anything and I certainly wasn't "reminding"... I was simply asking (and rhetorically, at that).

"1) You made a bold edit that is removing some preexisting content without prior consensus."
- I don't need consensus to remove unsourced content.

"2) I reverted your edit and politely asked you to obtain consensus in discussion page before making such a bold move."
- See #1

"3) You ignored me and continued to revert your edits back."
I'm going to use the polite word people on WP often use: "disingenuous". That is what this comment of yours is. I made four edits;
#1 - my initial edit
#2 - my one and only revert
#3- addressed the language templates, (which you reverted along with the Kriegsmarine entry)
#4 - adding a cn tag

"4) Therefore you had been attempting to start an edit war."
- Erm, you are delibertely omitting some important facts: I only made one revert, which could never be construed as "edit-warring". You otoh made both the first and last reverts, meaning that not only did you make more reverts than I did, you demonstrated that you were willing to continue reverting. Therefore you were the one "attempting to start an edit war". It's when a user makes a second revert, instead of dicussing, that they are becoming disruptive. That's why many pages, and users, are limited to 1RR, because one is normally acceptable, it's when you keep reverting, that it's considered disruptive. "(Get it now? Ain't no rocket science.)"

"Do you now understand that your removal of Kriegsmarine reference..." - Wait, I did what now? You need to show me, with a WP:DIFF, where I supposedly removed said reference. (See above for an example of posting a diff). Last I checked, that entry is still unsupported, (as it was when I arrived), despite it's obvious importance to you (for some reason), and the fact that you made 35 edits to the page in just a couple hours.

But really, this is accomplishing very little. My suggestion would be to let it go. Learn what you can, such as the need to familiarize yourself with the policies & guidelines of this project, the need for collegial discussion, and move on. But if you really must carry on with this, I will ask that you provide the diff that I requested, (or strike your accusation), correct your remarks that have been shown to be >ahem< incorrect (again with striking), not post anymore personal attacks, learn to properly indent your replies and then do so, and to preview your edits before saving them.

That said, I believe your efforts would be better spent learning what reliable sources are how to properly cite them in articles. Then go and add a source to that entry I tagged in the article, otherwise it can be removeed at any time, by any person, including me. (See WP:Verifiability: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.") Here endeth the lesson. Have a nice day. - wolf 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(break)

The norm in Wikipedia is 3RR, and so is it in this page. Have you ever read the policies and guidelines carefully before making replies? And, have you still not realised that I didn't add that particular content myself? Why on earth are you demanding me to provide references for something that was not added by me at all?

And 'I don't need consensus to remove unsourced content.'...seriously? Have you ever read the policies and guidelines actually? That particular content existed in the page long before we were there, and that means there must be some forms of consensus must exist between the previous editors. In any sort of sense, your removal of that particular content can be considered bold and I have every right to revert your bold edit and then go into the BRD process. If you truly believe in the 1RR principle as you've claimed, then you probably should not have had reverted my revert in the second time.

P.S. I am not going to indent my replies, nor would I follow your every single 'suggestions' (though I may follow some actually). Deal with it and have a nice day, Sir. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'if not', that means I recognised that your edit might not be vandalism, nevertheless it is still a very bold edit so I have the rights to revert it and go into the BRD process. That means you shouldn't have had reverted my revert. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The norm in Wikipedia is 3RR, and so is it in this page." - This is getting well past the point of ridiculousness. I never said it wasn't 3RR, I just pointed out that I only made one revert (though you tried to make seem as I made many more) and that you made more reverts than I did. The reason I mentioned the existance of 1RR being imposed on other pages and editors is because that is virtually never considered disruptive or edit warring, whereas multiple reverts, like you made, can be construed as disruptive or edit-warring. Please pay attention.

"Have you ever read the policies and guidelines carefully before making replies?" - there's that pot-kettle thing again, but really... you need to stop being so rude and focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS

"And, have you still not realised that I didn't add that particular content myself? Why on earth are you demanding me to provide references for something that was not added by me at all?" - it doesn't matter who added it because it's not sourced. As per the policy I already cited for you, unsourced content can be removed (and whoever is removing it does not need a consensus to do so). The reason I asked, (not "demanded") asked if you were going to add a source, was because regardless if you originally added that entry or not, you are the one that insisted on it staying in the article, to the point that you were willing to edit war to keep it there. Since it seems sooo important to you, I just thought you might like to add a source before someone removes it again.

"And 'I don't need consensus to remove unsourced content.'...seriously?" - yes, seriously.

"Have you ever read the policies and guidelines actually?" - there you go being rude again. You really need to give WP:NPA a read.

"That particular content existed in the page long before we were there, and that means there must be some forms of consensus must exist between the previous editors." - consensus, whether it's implied or establised on a talk page, does not override the verifiability policy. Unsourced content can be removed by anyone, at any time, and cannot be protected by an implied consensus.

"In any sort of sense, your removal of that particular content can be considered bold and I have every right to revert your bold edit and then go into the BRD process." - but actually you don't have that "right". Once again... if that entry is not supported by a reliable source, it can be removed. You need to reconcile yourself with that fact.

"If you truly believe in the 1RR principle as you've claimed, then you probably should not have had reverted my revert in the second time." - what? No... I only mentioned 1RR to illustrate a point; that typically, across Wikipedia, a single revert is usually acceptable and not considered disruptive, and certainly not edit-warring, whereas a second-revert might be considered disruptive and possibly viewed as the start of edit-warring. And I can't believe that I need to remind you, yet again, that I only made one revert while you made two reverts. While you had shown that you were willing to edit-war, I'm the one that started a discussion instead.

"P.S. I am not going to indent my replies, nor would I follow your every single 'suggestions' (though I may follow some actually). Deal with it and have a nice day, Sir." - you are now being rude to the point of obnoxiousness. The reasons why I ask that you indent are all clearly spelled out in the Manual of Style and the Talk Page Guidelines. I don't know why it is that you somehow think you are above everyone else or that the rules don't apply to you, but you're not, and they do.

"I said 'if not', that means I recognised that your edit might not be vandalism, nevertheless it is still a very bold edit so I have the rights to revert it and go into the BRD process. That means you shouldn't have had reverted my revert." - oy... the simple fact is that you should be thanking me. Had I chosen to revert again, (that would've been my 2nd revert), you would've reverted again, (you're 3rd), and based on your appalling sense of self-entitlement, combined with your poor understanding of the policies and guidelines here, it's clear that you would've done just that. Then one more round; with my 3rd revert followed by your 4th, means you would've likely ended up blocked for edit-warring. Fortunately for you I decided to try and discuss instead, so... you're welcome. (Even though this discussion is tantamount to beating a dead horse.)

So, with all that said, I am going to again suggest you let this go. Perhaps find a source for that entry, if you don't want it removed again, because it will be otherwise. Or, just move on to something else.

But, if you feel that you really must reply yet again, I will ask that you carefully read not just my latest reply, but all my posts here, along with every policy and guideline I've cited for you. You are making a lot of errors, and some of your comments are not just incorrect, but also quite rude, while some are full-on disingenuous, and others are just so far afield, one might wonder if you mixing up this situation with some other concurrent content dispute.

If you choose to reply again, and there is no demonstrable improvement with your understanding of this matter and how the relevant policies apply, along with your general attitude and ability to tell the truth, then I won't even bother responding. I will instead just watch to see if you, (or someone else) adds a reference to that article entry. If that doesn't happen in the near future, then I will likely remove it again as uncited, original research. (That's if someone else hasn't removed it already for the same reason.)

Don't just reflexively react, but consider everything carefully. Have a nice day - wolf 02:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

So, I actually gave in and left your unsupported edit in place, with a "cite needed" tag, for six months, during which time sourcing wasn't added, (including by you, who suddenly couldn't be bothered with your edit anymore), and so it was removed. And now you re-add it again - twice in the same day - but still can't be bothered to add sourcing? You do realize that is how Wikipedia works, right? Content must be supported by sourcing. That includes content added by you. - wolf 00:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, but I think we should still add the Volsmarine back as it seems it is being forgotten. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to the content you added without any sourcing. Afaict, the "Volksmarine" entry you added is linked to an article with sourcing, so it's not an issue here. - wolf 02:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

qırımlılar, къырымлылар

Can you give a single reason why you removed this? Beshogur (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gülnezer Bextiyar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing in Byzantine Empire

Can you stop add standards please? I wasted time for revert your vandalism edits. Phaisit16207 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should STOP smearing other users as it's just YOU who see it as vandalism. I've done my obligation in explaining how the coins are severely underrepresentative, and that chi-ro is only representative at the early days of Byzantine empire (it is rarely used after middle ages), but it seems that you have a bizarre concept that you believe both Constantine the Great and Palaiologos dynasty are not a part of the Byzantine empire, which is appallingly unacademic to me. And as this article suggests, the double headed eagle is the 'emblem mostly associated with the Byzantine Empire', I'm utterly confused about why it is not included in the intro template. Pktlaurence (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kingdom of Scotland, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please adhere to WP:BRD. You are evidently labouring under some grave misconceptions so please discuss them before reimposing them on the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know it's before the Union and that's exactly why I've already taken the words 'pre-Union' off; but, still, the current arms was only used during 1565–1603, which the other one has been used for much longer and should be more representative. It's never about the union. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to have a discussion it should be at the article talk page, not here, but to avoid you the trouble, read Royal arms of Scotland. The reference to 1565 is the resumption of their use in that form, after various changes made earlier in Mary Queen of Scots' reign, not their instigation. See also Achievement (heraldry). You are just adding the stripped down version, without the attendant detail and with less to differentiate it from the banner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth flag

Hi there. Thanks for going back to the original flag. The one with the saltires came into effect on 12 April 1654. Thinking about it, the flag wouldn't include the Scottish saltires prior to Scotland being conquered and absorbed by England, would it? Which happened at the end of this war. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Im so glad to see such a friendly gesture on wiki, but anyway, I have a question unanswered. I've seen a page that states that version of flag was used from 1651 to 1658, why? Pktlaurence (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you saw it on Wikipedia, that is a notoriously unreliable source; anyone can put anything on it.

Oddly, I was researching it when I saw you had replied as you piqued my interest. I shall report back if I find anything interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why my professors always fails students who quote from wiki, LOL.

BTW glad to meet someone who is interested at British history, which is the course I picked up this semester. Where are you from? Pktlaurence (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the English part of the UK. The flag situation is, as ever, complicated; not helped by flags and standards of the time being largely naval things and almost never used by armies in practice. That said, Perrin, British Flags (1922) p. 62-63 seems to agree with what is currently in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...it might be correct to use the saltire version of the commonwealth flag?🤔🤔🤔 I'm from one of your former colonies btw. Pktlaurence (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! No. Only for Scotland. (I am joking there.) Find a solid source and we can discuss it. We are always happy when our colonialists make good.

15:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

They might have done wrong in other places, but not mine...in my place they did good. Pktlaurence (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your recent editing history at Principality of Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article itself explains their were two polities: the Principality of Wales which was the lands of the Welsh House of Aberffraw (1216-1282). Then after the Edwardian Conquest there was a new Principality of Wales established as a feudal appanage of the House of Plantagenet which lasted until the 1540s when it was incorporated into the Kingdom of England. The coat of arms you've tried repeatedly to remove is the coat of arms of the Prince of Wales during most of the Plantagent period. This has got nothing to do with "Welsh home rule" which is a much later concept of the 19th - 21st centuries and relates to Welsh parliamentary government. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's exactly what I meant, that the coa I removed are not from native Welsh rule. Only that one before Edwardian conquest represents native Welsh rule. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't cover just native Welsh rule. It covers to the 1540s becuase that's when the Principality lasted until. It makes no sense and you're edit warring. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might cover the period of English rule but a native Welsh symbol would be more representative than an English one even if it had a shorter duration of usage. Besides, in some sort of sense we can say that the principality had already been ended after the Edwardian conquest, since what's left after is more like a puppet. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to have you're own personal theories and preferences, but the Infobox should reflect the article and the article clearly covers both the shorter Welsh period and the longer English period. The way it works on Wikipedia is that the longstanding existing position should remain in place until there's a consensus to change it per WP:ONUS. If you continue to revert without getting consensus for the change you'll end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Roman Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I won't list all the articles at which you're edit-warring to insert flags into infoboxes contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. If you wish to change the MOS, go to its talk page but in the meantime, stop edit-warring to impose your desired changes. NebY (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many articles which has flags in infoboxes (that wasn't editted by my either) and I think it would be are to explain this with the MOSS... Pktlaurence (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nogai Horde. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. NebY (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nogai Horde

Your recent editing history at Nogai Horde shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Both of your refs doesn't talk about Nogai Horde but Nogais. Stop edit warring. That's not the flag of Nogai Horde. Beshogur (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Channa micropeltes

Your recent changes to Channa micropeltes appear to be unhelpful and are without explanation. Could you please provide an explanation as to why you think that your changes are an improvement. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an invasive specie. There are even a section of this article which says 'As an invasive species'. Pktlaurence (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section describes that it has not been successful in being invasive. If you consider that it is universally accepted as being invasive please provide a citation or source. If your objection is the heading of the section "As an invasive species", then it would be better to change that heading Jameel the Saluki (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the case in Taiwan its already referenced. Pktlaurence (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reference declaring it invasive by all authorities. That is at best one territory. Even then nowhere in the article is the fish described as invasive (invasive has a specific definition). In order for the words to be changed from "change be considered" to "is" you need a authoritative reference which describes it as being universally accepted as being invasive, not just in one jurisdiction. In any case, thanks for pointing out the wording in regards Taiwan, that will probably need to be altered, as the news article doesn't even refer to them being established, much less invasive. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The news article did mentioned black and white that it is already more than well-established, you should read it. As for the definition of 'invasive', the specie already possess invasiveness if it can establish itself and starting to jeopardise one single ecosystem, it doesn't have to invade the entire globe to be 'invasive' (that'd be 'widespread invasive' FYI). If it wasn't established in elsewhere, it just mean that it hasn't been elsewhere yet. Should the specie had an opportunity to travel elsewhere, their innate 'invasiveness' will cause them to settle, establish and wreak havoc. Pktlaurence (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found better sources that describe the species as being invasive in Taiwan. As a moot point I disagree that the article describes the species as being even established, but other sources have confirmed and elaborated on that point. The species has been been introduced into many parts of the world including the US, Europe and the Philippines and has always failed to become established. Simply being established in a foreign area doesn't make it invasive, there is a set of criteria laid out as explained in other Wiki articles, but in any case editors cannot choose to declare whether a species is invasive or not, they must use authoritative citations. There are plenty of organisations that monitor such things. So in order to claim a species invasive you would need such an authority. Curiously, none of the world organisations have identified to invasive nature of the species in Taiwan. I suspect a language barrier. I will repeat that a species invasive in one country might not be considered to be in another. I propose a compromise to the text where it says that the species is considered invasive in Taiwan. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take it that you agree to the compromise wording? Or are you searching for more background information?

Also could you please explain why you think changing "Use as food" to "Gastronomy" is an improvement? I have explained why I think that it is worse.

In the meantime I will get around to rewording and rereferencing the Taiwan issue Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you agree with its invasiveness in Taiwan. I just fished quite a few individuals out of the damn lake and my local friends boiled one into soup, I dropped a few balls of rices into the pot and it became our lunch. Pktlaurence (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would have made things a little easier for me if you had pointed out that you had local knowledge, though citations are always needed.

I've still got a few issues

- "but has also been introduced elsewhere and is considered invasive, especially in Taiwan" a) it is considered invasive ONLY in Taiwan. If you believe that is considered invasive elsewhere you need an authoritative reference b) a species can't be "especially" considered invasive, it either is considered invasive or it isn't. It's binary

- "A speculation of the reason that the specie settled in Taiwan but is less successful in elsewhere is that the climate, ecosystem and latitude of Taiwan being more similar to its native biome." You simply cannot post this. This is your speculation and editor research or speculation is not permitted. If there is evidence of speculation from appropriate authorities you need to provide a reference. Also it should be "species" not "specie"

- "which the situation is most severe " - where is your evidence that this is the place in Taiwan where it is most severe. Again it needs a reference.

- "In aquarium" is not correct English, it needs to stay as "In the aquarium". If English is not your primary language I would suggest that you do not make changes to English language articles on the basis of grammar.

- the resorting of the segments is good, so well done there.

- Are there are other changes that you have made? Wikipedia hasn't tracked it too well. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use the word especially because Taiwan suffered the most from their invasion. And it is the most severe because only the SML situation made it to news, none of others did. Trust me, everytime we went fishing there we will always get at least one fish that is partially eaten by these little bastards. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "I use the word especially because Taiwan suffered the most from their invasion" then you would state that Taiwan has suffered most from its invasiveness. Stating that it is especially considered invasive in Taiwan is incorrect English

- "And it is the most severe because only the SML situation made it to news" - that is not evidence that you can use in a citation, and it almost certainly isn't valid evidence. The most important thing I can say to you at this point is that it doesn't matter what you (or me for that matter) is true, what you can enter onto Wikipedia is only material that can be verifiable. You are not permitted to interpret the evidence, merely report it. You cannot use Wikipedia to express your views on the world, only to report on the views of other people. So before you enter any information into Wikipedia ask yourself this "Is this my opinion, or someone else's?". If it is your opinion, do not enter it. If it is someone else's, then provide a citation. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've got an issue with edit warring, and despite having been an Wikipedia editor for some time, you still don't seem to have gotten the drift of what it entails. I'll give you 24hrs to think things over, but I'm going to have to make the appropriate changes to work that you have posted that don't have the required citations. See WP:V Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page references

Please do not keep adding references to the disambiguation page National anthem of Hong Kong per MOS:DABNOLINK. Bailmoney27 ^talk 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK Sorry Pktlaurence (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Styx & Stones (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National anthem of Hong Kong. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Please stop editing the page. Discuss at the DRN case page! Styx & Stones (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I just discussed with Purin and it seems he agreed that the Beyond song should be removed. Now at least we both have a consensus. Regards. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pktlaurence reported by User:Bailmoney27 (Result: ). Thank you. Bailmoney27 ^talk 20:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at National anthem of Hong Kong. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pktlaurence reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: ). Thank you. JBL (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß

There is a discussion on the talk page whether to move it to Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß (his civil name) or the English orthography style Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss. There‘s no nobility in Germany anymore so „Prince“ is not a title but his civil, legal last name is „Prinz Reuß“, see Otto Graf Lambsdorff (and not Otto, Duke of Lambsdorff) or Richard von Weizsäcker (and not Richard, Baron of Weizsaecker). I would ask you to revert your change which is far away from the discussed options on the talk page. Feel free to add your thoughts to the talk page instead. Thanks! StTropez83 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry that I didn't notice that beforehand. Am going to stick to the old one then. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence, edit warring

I will ask you politely, once: revert your recent move (which (1) was extremely rude, coming shortly after I moved the page, (2) ignores a discussion on the talk-page, and (3) has no basis in any policy beyond that you personally like it better than way) or I will bring you to ANI, seeking to have you indefinitely blocked as obviously WP:NOTHERE and apparently incapable of behaving politely or recognizing the discussions and consensus of others. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave explanations and did you read it? stop trying to threat me thats a good faith edit. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, that's not yet a breach to 3RR. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Your recent editing history at 2022 German coup d'état plot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Again, competency is an issue here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that flags might be a controversy, and we could and might talk about the Reichsburger, and I will check my spellings more carefully thereafter, but there is one sure thing that you should not remove my referenced contents. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break this down for you:

1. MOS:FLAGS permits belligerents to have flags associated with them but the coup plotters themselves never used a flag and have never been identified with one in the media. They is no requirement for balance on flags, so the German flag can go back.
2. Your source is already cited, creating a duplicate reference. It should be deleted
3. No one has been convicted yet, so listing the leaders there is a violation of WP:BLP. No need for the German government's leadership, as no one has been identified as leading their anti-coup operation in a manner that qualifies for that.
4. Why are you reinserting spelling errors?
5. You have been warned a half dozen times to quit edit warring. I'll take this to the noticeboard if you don't self-revert.

Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Reichsbürger movement isn't a group. It's, as the name suggests, a movement. For example, Irish Nationalism is a movement, but the Provisional Irish Republican Army is a group that believes in Irish Nationalism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I couldn't see the spelling errors, and I would appreciate if you can point it out for me. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors are the least of your problems, but "uniun" comes to mind. Also, not every Reichsbürger was involved in this. You need to self-revert now. This is a pretty evident case of WP:CIR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the uniun error and I did fix it. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the group's name is Reichsburger but someone just put a 'movement' after it. Besides this, numerous sources had already publicised the identity of those who are arrested, so why? I strongly believe that the leaders should not be deleted. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the version prior to your disruptive edits. Do not attempt to restore your version without acquiring support on the article talk page for 2022 German coup d'état plot. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why the hell would you bother with this unneccesary trouble? Did I oppose your revert? Was trying to make a discussion with you here. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

TylerBurden (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]