- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for September 5
- 3 November 2015 Paris attacks
- 4 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 5 Alert about your Edits on September 11 Attacks
- 6 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 7 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 8 Edit warring
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for January 2
- 10 LLWS
- 11 LLWS (Follow up)
- 12 indonesian
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for June 9
- 14 Vietnam War
- 15 Wikitext and HTML5
- 16 LLWS talk page
- 17 I Know It's Great...
- 18 Informative message
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited China as an emerging superpower, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rush Hour, Middle and J-10. 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.
With this edit you added the word "pejorative" to the words "Arabic acronym". The article cited as a source says nothing whatsoever about it being a pejorative usage. If you want to add this point of view word to the article, you must provide a citation from a reliable source which confirms that the expression used is pejorative. Without a citation from a reliable source, this is simply your opinion. Please do not do this again. Please add only information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source; any other information will be removed. BMK (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @BMK, the acronym being pejorative is discussed in the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Etymology, which I will quote along with its sources: "ISIL considers the name Da'ish derogatory, because it sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes, "one who crushes something underfoot", and Dahes, "one who sows discord". ISIL reportedly uses flogging as a punishment for those who use the name in ISIL-controlled areas." Kiwifist (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
DAESH shiftwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Randal, Collin. "why-does-a-simple-word-like-daesh-disturb-extremists-so-much". thenational.ae/. Retrieved 22 November 2014.
- Abouzeid, Rania (16 January 2014). "Syria's uprising within an uprising". European Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 25 January 2014. Retrieved 15 August 2014.
- Keating, Joshua (16 June 2014). "Who Is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?". Slate. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Alert about your Edits on September 11 Attacks
|This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Your recent editing history at Vietnam War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- @Signedzzz:, I definitely think it's undue for the lead. Consensus is achieved by discussion, not voting or edit warring, which you have been warned of many times. I suggest you restore the status quo. Kiwifist (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sino-German cooperation 1926–1941, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
I'm open to discuss the edits being made on the LLWS wikipedia page. In the table that tallies the championships, I feel the US as a country should be represented on the table. I put the U.S. rank on the table with a dash (-), meaning that they aren't apart of the ranking but have the most championships. This same kind of situation can be seen on the GDP page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). On this page the European Union is represented with a dash (-) as they have the unofficial 2nd highest GDP but aren't a single country. Since the table tallies championships by states for the U.S. I can see why people may disagree, but the fact that other countries are represented on the table means that the U.S. should be represented as well, even if they are unofficial. I saw as one of your arguments was that no team is represented as the "U.S", however, that is false. The team that wins the U.S. half of the tournament goes into the finals represented as the United States as well as by their state name. For the first column of the page I feel the United States should also be represented as the team with the most championships. However, I agree that Taiwan should be included as well since people may argue that the states win the championships for the state while the foreign countries represent just that country. So if we can make for some way for the column on the first page to show both Taiwan and the U.S. having the most championships, or use an * or () to show that the U.S. has the unofficial most titles, that would be ideal. Moreover, I feel that firstly on the table that shows the tallies of championships, the U.S. should absolutely be represented with a dash (-) to show that they have the unofficial most and Taiwan still has the most, and second and lastly, that for the first column that some compromise that shows Taiwan as the official most and the U.S. as the the unofficial most should be present. I hope you take this into consideration so we can make a compromise that is best for the article. I'm not the first or even only person to have these views, so this should deeply be taken into consideration.
- I've moved this discussion to the Talk:Little League World Series page where it belongs. Kiwifist (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
LLWS (Follow up)
Just a follow up, i re edited the page. The table that tallies the championships should be kept the same, however, please change the top column on the front page accordingly to make it look better. I tried my best to make some kind of comprise but I can use some work. Thanks in advance lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTbook365 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your editing in the history articles there... there is always a lot more to be checked, believe me... JarrahTree 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- EDIT: I misread you last edit, I thought you reverted me because it still said +4 letters (like it did when you reverted me previously), so I didn't actually check whether it was a revert or not. My sincerest apologies for my snappy tone. I'm fine with the current wording if you're fine with it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikitext and HTML5
Your edit here looks like aexpression of your personal editorial style preferfence. AFAIK, Wikipedia does not have a style preference on this. See here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wtmitchell, I based it on what the article was mostly using for consistency. Kiwifist (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
LLWS talk page
Hey, just an FWI I responded to you on the talk page for the LLWS. Hope you can help me out and start a consensus, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTbook365 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I Know It's Great...
Hey buddy, I'm not sure whats your problem with this whole Little League World Series thing but something needs to change with you. You can have your opinion for whatever reason and that is fine, However, when you wont budge for change and then when you are cornered with questions on the talk page with another user you can't just disappear and not answer. The user Spintendo is the only user besides you that bothered to share their opinion on the talk page, and that user agreed with both the fact that the United States should be represented as a team, and that multiple tables could be added if needed. Now since no other users bothered to chime in on the argument, and since you for some reason stopped responding a majority consensus was made. Yes it was only 2 people against 1, but no one else bothered to share their opinion and multiple days passed without a response from your self. So with that being said it makes absolutely no sense that when edits are made on the page that you should change them back since you stopped responding on the talk page. You were cornered in a hole by questions, and you knew you were wrong and stopped responding. The fact of the matter is, if you are not willing to come to an agreement and talk it out on the talk page, then when a majority decision is made don't even try to change the edits back. i don't know what made you so stubborn but I am 100% willing to come to some mutual agreement on how the tables and everything should look. However, when the opportunity came to come to agreement you stopped responding. So here are your options, You either let the edits be since a consensus was made, you can make a new proposal countering the edit and see what consensus can be made then, or you can finally respond on the talk page so we can come to some kind of agreement. This whole thing is starting to become childish that you purposely are not responding so since you don't agree and don't respond a real consensus isn't made. Well I got some news for you buddy, that doesn't matter because if you wont respond then you aren't apart of the conversation or consensus anymore. So please look over your options and make a productive decision. I have not seen one other user defend you ideas, while multiple have agreed with me. Once again, I'm more than willing to come to some mutual agreement that is fair for both sides, but that means that you have to commutative with me. As of now the consensus was made since you don't respond and a majority has agreed on the decision, so until the consensus changes due to other users or us working out some mutual agreement as stated before, the LLWS page should remain the same for now. I really don't mean to come off to you as mean or demanding, but I'm very frustrated at the fact that we can't try to come to an agreement. I understand that you believe it should be the way it is, but other people don't agree with you, and because of that I feel it needs to change. Best regards, and please respond to me in some way! We need to communicate or else nothing will ever be done correctly.ANTbook365 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I responded right here and you never replied. Spintendo NEVER agreed with any of your changes and never said the "USA team" should be represented in the article. You have been edit-warring with multiple IP sockpuppets going back months with the consensus being against you. Kiwifist (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)