User talk:Azertopius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Azertopius, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Azertopius! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you stop editing the Canada article?[edit]

First, you're at three reverts (and so am I). Second, you're making fundamental mistakes in WP:OVERLINKing and like italicizing songs, which are to be quoted instead. Third, you're going against consensus reached on the talk page in linking North America and other changes. You should feel free to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page though. 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Canada, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Azertopius - you may have noticed your new additions to the Canada article have been reverted. At this point can we get you to propose changes on the articles talk page. Being an FA country article there has been many many talk about how to present the article let alone the many policies we should follow. -- Moxy (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Need you to listen to others please - do not make the same edits over and over when they have been contested. -- Moxy (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You have been asked here before. Your changes are not correct. Please do not make them any longer. You may be blocked if you you continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing, edits like this, where you pretend to work on one section of the article but actually edit other parts as well, are not acceptable. The fact that the edit is against two separate MoSes is also unacceptable. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music states that songs, whether classical or popular, should be contained in quotes, not italics. Also WP:QUOTEMARK, which is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles states that songs should be in quotations. Rather than state (or think, since you don't tend to use edit summaries) that other articles use italics for their national anthems, simply change those that use italics to use quotes and applying the MoS to them rather than applying something wrong to the few that are correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on. WP:OVERLINKing and other bad edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You did it yet again. Canada did not become independent from the UK in 1867. You even incorrectly changed content that was referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Canada has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

I've Had to undo your last few edits. In the case of the 'nation ' changes a simple check on the talk pages would have pointed you to previous discussions. The other two appear to be your unsupported assertions. One edit was incorrectly labeled as minor. Please be more careful in future and if you need help ask ----Snowded TALK 09:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

Hi, I see that you have re-inserted the word 'unitary' in the infobox - I've suggested people supporting the use of that term post their reasoning on the talk page. You will need either convincing references or else substantive evidence that it is in common and widespread usage. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from United States without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. Removal of content from the infobox should be discussed on the talk page. Please discuss the infobox issue on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mel Gibson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tedickey. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. 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! TEDickey (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain[edit]

You may or may not be correct in the edit you wish to make. However, the manner in which you are going about it is not constructive. What you should do is start a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain, present your sources so others can look at them, allow other editors to present their sources, and then seek the input of additional voices. If you have consensus, the changes you wish will be made. If you continue to try to force through your changes against the objections of others then you may find that you won't get your way. If your goal is to make Wikipedia better, you'd be willing to talk it over and convince people, through rational discourse, the correctness of your stance. If your only goal is to "win" then you've already lost. The choice is yours how you wish to proceed. One path leads to making Wikipedia better, the other path leads to frustration and ultimately getting asked to leave Wikipedia until you learn how to cooperate. You can do whatever you want, but don't say the outcomes were not laid out before you, and that you didn't know what to expect from your choices. --Jayron32 21:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Participants in World War I. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to John A. Macdonald, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Meters (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Canadians. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Making such a drastic change to a long-standing introductory sentence is not a minor edit, and should not be made without getting consensus. For years this article has defined Canadians not solely on the basis of citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs) 21:06, October 28, 2014‎

Mexican independence[edit]

Independence Day celebrates the day Miguel Hidalgo is believed to have made the cry of independence (El Grito de la Independencia) in the town of Dolores, in the north-central part of the Mexican state of Guanajuato. There is no scholarly agreement on what was exactly said by Hidalgo, but his speech, also known as the cry of Dolores (el Grito de Dolores), was made on September 16, 1810 to motivate people to revolt against the Spanish regime. Yes Mexico's independence was not offical until September 28, 1821, but it was declared in 1810....just took a long time for others to recognizes this as there was a war. This is why the infobox (and article) explains this with links to the proper articles. -- Moxy (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss your change on Talk:Mexico before making that change again. Please read the policies on WP:BRD and WP:3RR. On the first policy, Be Bold, Revert, Discuss - you have been bold, you have been reverted, now it's time to discuss it. On the second, you have already made essentially the same edit three times in a row, that constitutes edit warring. Don't do it to the point that it gets your account shut down. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How to cominicate on Wikipedia[edit]

Copy text I wrote from Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia

A screencast demonstrating how to use a talk page. (2:43 min)

Behind the scenes of Wikipedia articles, there is a large community of volunteer editors working to build the encyclopedia. It is not uncommon for editors to disagree about the way forward. That is when discussion and an attempt at reaching consensus should take place. Every article on Wikipedia has a talk page, reached by clicking the Talk tab just above the title (for example, Talk:Alexander the Great). There, editors can discuss improvements to the content of an article. You can participate too! If you ever make a change that gets reverted by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus, and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with civility and assume good faith on the part of others.


--Moxy (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BilCat[edit]

I have just reverted your change to User:BilCats user page, I appreciate you did it in good faith but it is not normal practice to change other users user page. If you have an issue with what they have on that page then please raise it on the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my user page, or you may be blocked. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sign talk page comments[edit]

Please add a signature to your talk page comments. You can do so by appending four tildes at the end of your comment (~~~~), which will automatically insert your user name and a timestamp. Mindmatrix 14:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexico. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing Warning[edit]

Your editing style seems more disruptive than productive. Every page you have edited seems to be in an Edit war with other users. This is not how Wikipedia works, if something you edit is reverted, do not re-add it - instead discuss it on the talk page, and wait for a consensus. ONLY after a consensus has been reached is the reverted information, or what has been agreed upon by the consensus, should the edit happen. There are many different "guidelines" and "policies" in place in order to try and keep Wikipedia functioning, but if you continue to ignore the guidelines pointed out to you by other users, then that will be clear that your editing is not done in good faith.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Avertissment bilingue[edit]

Soyez avertis que votre façon d'agir sur le Wikipédia Anglophone n'est pas appréciée par ceux et celles qui essaient de contribuer en bonne foie, SVP ne continuez pas vos contribution qui dérangent le bon fonctionnement de l'encyclopédie, sinon vos actions vont démontrer que vous n'agissez pas en bonne foie. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.