User talk:Lakwat

Hello, I've added word "hypothetical" in the English article about Old East Slavic language, because the existence of this language is hypothetical (read "General considerations" part of the article). While many linguists are talking about that the single Old East Slavic language, that was the predecessor of three modern languages, never existed the beginning of this article describes it as something objective and real, so there is certain inconsistency in the article itself. It describes the linguistic subject so it is supposed to be based on general concensus. There is no general consensus about this subject, just the struggle between imperialistic propaganda of Russian Empire/USSR/Russian Federation, and objective facts that are showing that speaking language of Novhorod and speaking language of Kyiv had been different languages. Thanks, --194.156.251.200 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im not sure of this is how you use the talk page, but here goes. My post was done as a joke, however i did remove another joke that seemed to slip under your checks, and after reading it, was made by a rival fan to poke fun. Can you make more checks in future, as fans do have a tendancy to lie and add bogus comments and quotes regarding new changes to teams and team personnel.

Thanks,

149.71.67.122 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs good faith edits

This revert wasn't of vandalism, there was in fact a bonus video on the Luas (although whether it's worth mentioning in that article is another question). Please be careful when using RedWarn not to mark good faith edits as vandalism, and certainly don't leave "only warnings" if you're unsure. the wub "?!" 09:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed the changes and can agree that they were good faith changes and did not requiere a rollback but rather a discussion on a talk page. I think my mistake was that uppon seeing the fact that the user had been blocked in the past month, I was too quick to assume that the edits would be vandalism and flagged it as so. I also should have looked at the user's talk page before giving any level 3 or 4 warnings. I will make sure to take more care when doing this and I hope you understand that I am trying to help the Wikipedia community but did make a mistake. Lakwat (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Klippenstein

Hi, I think there is a NPOV issue with your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1026289597&diffmode=source), are you sure that anon user is vandalizing? Justiyaya (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Lakwat (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert

I noticed you reverted this edit, which was a revert of a previous edit. Your revert caused the vandalism to be reinstated. Please be more careful when using RedWarn in the future. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 12:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Lakwat (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi Lakwat, you have a great userpage, great job improving it :) Justiyaya (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya Thanks, I coould not have done it without your initial help and motivation :)

Hi, can you explain how https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434&diff=prev&oldid=1056286030 violated a policy? It was fixing errors introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434&diff=prev&oldid=1049809804 (compare the name and title of the person to that given in the "Aircraft and crew" section) . 2600:1700:291:20EF:619E:E47B:810D:E201 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Lakwat

Thank you for creating Sarcoma Foundation of America.

User:Kudpung, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

More cats added.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm BlackcurrantTea. Please don't remove references to reliable sources as you did with this edit] to Josep Tarradellas. If you object to the presence of citations in the lead, please move the references to another section rather than deleting them. Thanks, and happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BlackcurrantTea, thanks for letting me know. You are absolutelly right about this. In trying to make the article more comprehensible to others, I forgot to re-add the sources that I had removed. Thank you! Lakwat (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew I of Constantinople

Hi Lakwat, thanks, but please keep WP:3RR in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please pardon the 3RR infringement, I didn't notice it was all on the same 2 pages, I though that it was the same vandalism all over a bunch of pages, I'll keep a better eye out next time. Lakwat (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Crypto-trading hamster

Hello, Lakwat,

Thank you for creating Crypto-trading hamster.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice article on the Crypto trading hamster. It needs more detail, so it can be expanded.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Oaktree b}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2023 (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) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About your CSD and maintenance tags on Oskar Ibru

Hi Lakwat, thank you for conducting content-checking work. However, I found your additions of CSD A7 and maintenance tags on Oskar Ibru inappropriate. Firstly, CSD A7 tags should only be added when there is no credible claim of significance; however, at the revision you tagged, there were claims like "billionaire" and "Chairman of Ibru Organization", which are sourced using RS. Therefore, the A7 tag should not be applicable this case. Secondly, I noticed you added 9 tags (!!) to the article. It is incorrect to put more than four tags in an article, as it is disruptive and may be considered as a tag bomb. Also, several tags are redundant, e.g. the Lead Rewrite and Lead Too Short tags, and BLP sources and More citations needed tags. Moreover, several tags are irrelevant to the problem of the article. For example, for the Notability tag, I don't know if you every did a BEFORE, but even the sources in the article are enough to provide BASIC. I also cannot find a single statement that isn't reliably sourced, so I don't see why Original Research should be here. The article is very short, so there is no need to tag the improvement of the lead (since there is no lead). There isn't a lack of sources in the article, and they provide enough SIGCOV; no sources are unreliable at first glance.

I noticed you are new to content maintenance, thank you for helping! To improve your tagging skills, please read relevant guidelines of taggings. Keep up your work!

P.S. Your anti-vandal work is great currently, thanks for your useful contributions! Timothytyy (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Morocco

the multiple maps that are provided in the page of geography of Morocco are wrong as the western Sahara is still under the control of the Moroccan government as the united nations didn't give a answer about the situation in the western Sahara. So giving informations about the top part only and providing cut maps would be unfair for the Moroccan people and anyone who hopes to explore Morocco. I hope you realize the mistake and help fix it. 102.100.127.64 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the opinion, and you are fully within your right to believe that the maps should not be there. What I recommend that you do (as I am not an expert in the geopolitics of Morocco) is that you make a comment on the Article's talk page (Here) so that you can discuss the issue with other editors. If you manage to reach an agreement with other editors, you may change or remove the maps. Lakwat (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]