User talk:Yosakrai

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Sukavich Rangsitpol. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 13:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New comment moved

Thank you for the comment at my talk page. I have moved it at WP:BLPN because this is where the centralized discussion should take place at the moment. —Paleo Neonate – 16:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ole Gunnar Solskjær, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Changban into Romance of the Three Kingdoms. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your kindly.Yosakrai (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

It's unclear what you're trying to do there, your message has already been posted multiple times. If it is a suggestion for other editors without a conflict of interest to edit the article, they are volunteers and are not obliged to do so (or may need time to do it). In any case, the way it is presented is in a highly promotional tone that would not be acceptable in the article itself. —Paleo Neonate – 14:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I am aware that I participated in the edit war as well, but I have stopped and I will refrain from editing the article until consensus has been reached on the talk page. You should do the same. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (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. Thank you. RJFF (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not engage in legal threats and please do not edit war, or you will be sanctioned. Thanks. El_C 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using discussion pages.

Hi. When discussing issues on talk pages or other discussion pages, please don't copy other people's comments and paste them into several different places, or create unnecessary new sections. It makes the discussion difficult to follow, and people will be less likely to respond. In most cases, please just add your own comments to the bottom of the discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of administrator noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --—Paleo Neonate – 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. Wikipedia:Libel When articles reflect reliable sources, it is not libel. Please also see WP:LEGAL. —Paleo Neonate – 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 07:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ban

Be that as the newspaper may, the content was subject to various literary discussions and was used as a source in various articles/books. You can't simply lift a favorable portion of the text and make him look more favorable. I myself also have difficulty to check with the source alleged, since the source is a "passing mention" of the name without discussing the content itself. As other experienced editor has provided above, your persistence in this regard may lead to further sanction. Please use the talk page to discuss the issue, back your reasons with source, and do not engage in a revert war and let the uninvolved editor to provide their input. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My battles with Sukavich Rangsitpol's detractors

To improve the encyclopedia ,I am concerned about righting great wrongs .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs

Yosakrai (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. kingboyk (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]