References |
You repeatedly reverted the edits, I did not. You started the edit war and I have already proven that I was right through logical argumentation. I am not dealing with you because you are a bully and all of the comments on your talk page prove it. |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please '''fill out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScoZU2jEj-ndH3fLwhwG0YBc99fPiWZIfBB1UlvqTawqTEsMA/viewform this form]''' by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! '''~''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#07517C">Super</span>]]''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#6FA23B">Hamster</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small> 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please '''fill out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScoZU2jEj-ndH3fLwhwG0YBc99fPiWZIfBB1UlvqTawqTEsMA/viewform this form]''' by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! '''~''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#07517C">Super</span>]]''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#6FA23B">Hamster</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small> 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
==[[:File:Sweet Bird of Youth (1989 film).jpg]]== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|left|25px|alt=]]Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to [[:Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing]]. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at [[WP:Image resolution]], along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the [[User talk:Ronhjones|bot owner]] if you have any questions, or you can ask them at [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content]]. See [[User:RonBot]] for info on how to not get these messages. [[User:RonBot|RonBot]] ([[User talk:RonBot|talk]]) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==[[:File:Domino (2019 film).jpg]]== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|left|25px|alt=]]Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to [[:Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing]]. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at [[WP:Image resolution]], along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the [[User talk:Ronhjones|bot owner]] if you have any questions, or you can ask them at [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content]]. See [[User:RonBot]] for info on how to not get these messages. [[User:RonBot|RonBot]] ([[User talk:RonBot|talk]]) 17:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== A vast number of issues == |
|||
With regard to your message [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677&curid=15126158&diff=891746317&oldid=891627478 here], you are thoroughly on the wrong side of policy. No one should ever be told to "just Google it yourself" when they remove unsupported material from articles. The [[WP:BURDEN| burden is on you]], the person adding the content, to include reliable sources when doing so. If your edit is reverted due to sourcing issues, you can't simply edit war to restore the content without providing the requested sources. This is basic Wikipedia editing and is covered by [[WP:BRD]]. You are combative with any editors who raise concerns contrary to the requirements to remain civil and edit collaboratively. You have been editing Wikipedia for many years, please listen to what others are communicating to you as opposed to simply blanking your talk page and making unfounded accusations of stalking. -- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
You must have posted this on the wrong person's page. Jax 0677 is the person who removed sourced content without justification here: [[Template:Tim Sköld]]. I provided the relevant six references on the page [[Tim Sköld]]: |
|||
<ref>https://cleorecs.com/store/shop/skold-never-is-now-limited-edition-clear-vinyl/</ref><ref>https://skold.bandcamp.com/album/never-is-now</ref><ref>http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php/de/6074-never-is-now-ehemaliges-marilyn-manson-mitglied-tim-skold-veroeffentlicht-sein-zweites-album.html</ref><ref>https://www.volt-magazin.de/index.php/home/release-preview-ebm-electro-industrial-post-punk-cold-wave/439-skold-never-is-now-album-info-cover-voe-termin-vorbestellung</ref><ref>http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/former-marilyn-manson-multi-instrumentalist-tim-skold-returns-with-new-skold-album-never-is-now/</ref><ref>http://www.altrevolt.com/tim-skold-announces-new-album-never-is-now/</ref> |
|||
Therefore my edit was thoroughly researched. These references have already been posted to the main article [[Tim Sköld]] so it is already established research. The person doing the "undoing" (Jax 0677) is the person who failed to do research and the burden is on that user to provide justification. Jax 0677 did not. I did the research already but Jax 0677 hit "undo" on my edit twice in a row without providing any justification. I provided references and it was "undone" again without any justification. I did not post any content without research and I did not say "just Google it yourself" so you can't put that in quotation marks because it is not true. You have misinterpreted the situation. I wrote "please Google it yourself" because I had already done thorough research and provided six references and if I am being accused of providing false information then that person should please Google the information personally as well in order to verify it. Isn't that what every user should do? It was a very logical and appropriate suggestion. This is what occurred: I already did the research and provided the references on the [[Tim Sköld]] page (since references aren't put in templates when they are already included in the article for the artist) beforehand. When my consistent, already well-researched, and therefore justified edit to the template was unceremoniously "undone" without any justification or even an edit summary, I suggested that the person do some actual research personally as well before undoing well-researched edits, because the burden is on that user to justify the deletion since I had already provided six references. On the user's talk page I once again provided the six references that I had already provided in the artist's article so that Jax 0677 could see that the edit was justified. I merely provided well-researched information. I did all the research and Jax 0677 undid my work without providing justification or doing any research. I kindly requested that this person check Google before simply hitting "undo" but I was in no way combative. If I had taken it to conflict resolution then they would have said that I never gave Jax 0677 a warning, therefore I was required to make that post on that user's talk page in order to justify bringing it to conflict resolution if it comes to that. There has to be a timeline showing that I notified the user of their mistake before escalating the matter, so that is what I did. It was my attempt to avoid an actual conflict by informing the user that there is information out there. If Jax 0677 believes that I am being untruthful then this information can be verified using Google, which is what I suggested. This is the order in which things have to be done according to Wikipedia. If you would like to take the next step and send it to conflict resolution then feel free to do so but I was trying to avoid that, even though I am clearly on the right side of the policy because I am the one who did the actual research, which I suggested Jax 0677 also do. I merely made an edit, provided references, and then kindly reminded the person hitting "undo" without justification to check Google before doing so in the future so that we could avoid a conflict regarding unjustified use of "undo" on my edits. I didn't want an argument to break out so I was trying to just nudge the person politely to at least check Google if they don't trust my research, which is the least that user could do. You seem to have interpreted the matter in a completely different way without actually researching what occurred. I was quite polite and helpful. I never got combative in any way. How can you possibly claim that a person hitting "undo" multiple times without providing justification is the one on the right side of the policy and that I am on the wrong side of the policy because I provided six references? Please rethink your position because that is completely backwards. You have come out of the blue and accused me of not doing research even though I am the one who provided the original research and Jax 0677 is the one who then undid the edits without justification, without providing an edit summary, and without doing any personal research. I provided six references. I hope that I have clarified the matter for you now, because it is a very clear case of a well-researched edit being unjustifiably undone. I was trying to keep the matter polite and civil so I am shocked at your unfounded accusations. I never called Jax 0677 any names and I never used exclamation points or attacked that user in any way. I simply reminded Jax 0677 to check Google before undoing well-researched edits. I checked Google and found those six references in addition to many more. Jax 0677 did no such checking. I provided a gentle reminder but remained civil. Please rethink your accusations because you are clearly on the wrong side of the matter. I provided references. The burden is on Jax 0677 to justify the deletion with contrary evidence, which I would gladly accept if there were any. This is not a personal fight. I am merely trying to get someone to provide some sort of edit summary, as per Wikipedia policy. I don't understand how that is such a terrible thing. Shouldn't everyone provide an edit summary? I always did, and it was always polite, informative, and to the point. Jax 0677 didn't. Please comment on that person's page because that is the person in the wrong here. That person is squatting on that template and just hitting "undo" on any well-researched edits, which is anti-collaborative. Repeatedly hitting "undo" without justification, as Jax 0677 is doing, is the very definition of edit warring. There is already justification for accusing Jax 0677 of edit warring for that, yet I did not get combative and I did not accuse Jax 0677 of edit warring because it is not my desire to become mired in a conflict. I merely gave Jax 0677 a reminder to check Google if confirmation is required that my sources are legitimate. All of your accusations against me should really be directed at that user, who is actively involved in edit warring. Rather than escalate the situation, I simply gave Jax 0677 a reminder to check Google as well to confirm anything he feels may not be true. I would accept a counterargument if Jax 0677 had provided any evidence at all. The burden is on Jax 0677 to provide evidence to the contrary, in which case I would acknowledge it any make adjustments accordingly. What could be more collaborative? Instead of making an accusation, I made a suggestion. Despite the rude nature of that user's repeated "undoing" of my work, I remained civil and did not escalate the matter. There is no other logical conclusion in this matter. I have explained this several different ways using a multitude of different wordings so hopefully you can find a statement that works for you somewhere in there. --[[User:Nicholas0|Nicholas0]] ([[User talk:Nicholas0#top|talk]]) 23:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== References === |
|||
{{RE}} |
|||
== April 2019 == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Template:Tim Sköld]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:18, 10 April 2019
The Barnstar of Good Humor
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Thanks for the smile here. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
Address Collection - WAM
Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question.
If you do not wish to share your personal information and do not want to receive the postcard, please let me know at my meta talk page so I will not keep sending reminders to you. Best, Addis Wang Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Sun_Wiki.svg/250px-Sun_Wiki.svg.png)
Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.
I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!
Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!
If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.
Thank you!
- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team
This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.
A page you started (In the Line of Duty: Ambush in Waco) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating In the Line of Duty: Ambush in Waco, Nicholas0!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Abishe (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
WAM Address Collection
Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your postal mailing address via Google form or email me about that on erick@asianmonth.wiki before the end of Janauary, 2018. The Wikimedia Asian Month team only has access to this form, and we will only share your address with local affiliates to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. We apologize for the delay in sending this form to you, this year we will make sure that you will receive your postcard from WAM. If you've not received a postcard from last year's WAM, Please let us know. All ambassadors will receive an electronic certificate from the team. Be sure to fill out your email if you are enlisted Ambassadors list.
Best, Erick Guan (talk)
Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 postcard - info needed!
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)