User talk:GreatLeader1945

July 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ideology/nazism

I am not going to revert you, but you may want to check out what merriam webster has to say on the subject. Religions, usually, have an ideology although it's usually called a doctrine. Kleuske (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

I am finding it too difficult to make sense out of your reverts here. Are you okay if photo of Gandhi and Sukarno have been used instead of Mazibur and Gandhi? Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with Philosophical pessimism and Antinatalism#Asymmetry between good and bad things

Hello there! I see you've been quite active in some things related to the above mentioned pages. I'm pinging you @GreatLeader1945: directly to ask for some help. I've started 3 initiatives for these pages. If you could spare some time in the near future, could you please take a look at the proposal and voice your opinion? Of course, if you have interest, time, and energy to participate that would be amazing!

Here are the projects:

1. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article — this initiative is already in progress. The idea is to raise the quality of the page by switching it from a mere historical account to a more encyclopedic format.

2. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page — related to the one above. The historical account is overly detailed. It would be much better to have a dedicated page for the history of philosophical pessimism and leave only a brief history in the main page.

3. Talk:Antinatalism#A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry — here, the idea is to extract the axiological asymmetry argument into a dedicated page. This way, a more detailed presentation could be given. In addition, we could expand on the various responses others philosophers made and counters from Benatar. Other pages could have a brief description and link to the details page.

I hope at least some of this will spark your interest! Fantastiera (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Protestant Church in Germany

I reverted your move and changes. This has been moved previously. The talk page has some informaiton on why this title is appropriate. Please create a WP:RM discussion if you'd like to continue with the move. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I see that in an edit summary at Kim Jong Un you wrote "stop with your edit war". That suggests that you are aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but if not then you should read it, because you are in danger of being blocked from editing for violation of that policy if you continue editing as you have done. JBW (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@JBW I agreed to not changed the photo if consensus is not reached, see Talk:Kim Jong Un#New portrait MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(For the record) GreatLeader1945, you have changed the photo used on Kim Jong Un seven times between October 5 and October 17: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. You have been reverted by three different editors, myself included. Four of these changes happened after discussion about a possible replacement photo was recently initiated at the talk page of the article. You have used three different photos that you seem to like: File:Kim Jong-un 2019.png, File:Kim Jong-un 2019 (cropped).jpg, and File:KimjongunPhoto.jpg. This is unquestionably a direct violation of our edit warring policy. Were I not involved in the Kim Jong Un article, I would have blocked you for this edit today, continuing the edit war despite conversation still ongoing. You are WELL over the line here. If you conduct another such edit while discussion has yet to conclude about changing the image on the article, I will report you for edit warring and it is likely you will be blocked. Please, don't do this. More abstractly, given that you've been edit warring elsewhere on the project, you need to carefully read and follow the edit warring policy. If any of it is unclear to you, ask questions. Don't continue edit warring. It will not go well for you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Hammersoft , did you read what I said to @JBW just above this comment of yours: "@JBW I agreed to not change the photo if consensus is not reached, see Talk:Kim Jong Un#New portrait". Cheers. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read it, but it did not appear to address the overall abstract issue. Further, I wanted to record the reverts you have been doing in case another administrator wishes to address this issue. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kazakhstan

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Beshogur (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur You're the one that started the edit war and you're arguing with facts stated in the page itself! You're abusing your top-tier-user position and literally try to white-wash an authoritarian regime of whom you're a fan of. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

Your currently chosen signature username of "MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit" does not comply with our guideline at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P where is says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username." Your current signature has absolutely nothing to do with your username, and nobody would conclude your signature is that of "GreatLeader1945". If you want to change your username to "MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit", you can read Wikipedia:Changing username for how to do it. In the meantime, please change your custom signature back to something that clearly identifies your current username. Please understand; I know where at disagreement at the Kim Jong Un article; this had nothing top do with that. I'm not here to harass you. I was confused by the "MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit" signature as I hadn't seen that username in the conversation before and the alerts notification system told me that "GreatLeader1945" had pinged me, not ""MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit". Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft OK, I'll revert it to my original one (my username) MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Done GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks

Per evidence presented at WP:ANI#Edit warring on Kazakhstan and personal attacks User:GreatLeader1945 (permalink) and your conduct in that discussion, I'm warning you against the use of personal attacks. Do not describe the actions of other editors as "whitewashing", which can be construed as an unevidenced assertion about their motives. If you're saying that the effect of an edit was to create an NPOV problem, just say that. Do not comment on other editors' ethnicity or national origin without good reason, especially when doing so implies that they may be biased based on those characteristics.

I'm eager to see this content dispute settled at the talk page. Please, as you discuss with your fellow volunteers, keep WP:CIVIL at the front of your mind. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers As I said in my reply to you at WP:ANI#Edit warring on Kazakhstan and personal attacks User:GreatLeader1945, I won't further participate in the edit war (because of it's pointlessness - there's a user who's literally arguing with facts stated in the said Wikipedia pages, and not because I'm afraid of a block). GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring

Beshogur gave you a warning about edit-warring above. Had I seen your editing at the time I would have blocked you from editing; you had already been warned, and did not need another warning. I am not blocking you now, because it is quite a while since your last edit-warring edit, but if I see you edit-warring again I am likely to block you from editing, no matter how short or long a time has elapsed since the last relevant edit. And just in case you may be inclined to think that doing so after some time would not be preventive, let me explain that indeed it would. Far too often over the years have I seen editors who think that it's perfectly all right to keep repeatedly edit-warring, provided they stop each edit-war once they have been warned about it. I hope, of course, that you won't make that mistake, but just in case you may, I will tell you that my experience is that the only way of preventing an editor who makes that mistake from doing it again and again is for them to be blocked. It is neither necessary nor desirable for a new warning to be issued each time. JBW (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@JBW, why haven't you read the above comments on my talk page before writing this wall of text about something that has already been settled? GreatLeader1945 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with JBW. GreatLeader1945, JBW brings a valid point forward here. Given how much has happened, more warnings are not needed. There is no reason you should not have a strong understanding of our edit warring policy. If things happen in the future, it is highly likely a block will happen without warning. It's a valid point that needs to be considered. I've seen editors who try to dodge around the policy by saying stuff like "that was years ago!" or "I wasn't blocked then, why am I blocked now after just two reverts?". There's no dancing around this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Is the block a perma one? GreatLeader1945 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter? The point is DO NOT EDIT WAR. Edit wars are pointless and disruptive to the project. How long a block is has no bearing on whether to conduct edit warring or not. Either give up edit warring as a means to an end, or you will be blocked. Your choice. If you try to make that choice based on your guess of how long the block will be, you will be...disappointed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft "Either give up edit warring as a means to an end, or you will be blocked." - All of you guys that came to my talk page the last two days don't seem to be able to read -

"@Firefangledfeathers As I said in my reply to you at WP:ANI#Edit warring on Kazakhstan and personal attacks User:GreatLeader1945, I won't further participate in the edit war (because of it's pointlessness - there's a user who's literally arguing with facts stated in the said Wikipedia pages, and not because I'm afraid of a block). GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)"

I'm asking informatively is it a perma (as a perma one is used for sock-puppetry, for example) or not, because I'm not acquaintanced with the character of the edit war block and you have to answer this question of mine. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

GL1945, you pinged me. Is there something you need from me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

GreatLeader1945; ...and yet you continue with personal attacks that we don't "seem to be able to read". That's quite enough. I don't have to answer how long the block will be. Different administrators will apply different blocks. Discussion about the length of the block is meaningless. If you don't engage in edit warring again, you don't have to worry about it. You should consider applying WP:1RR to yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: I tried twice page protection and once anti vandalism request, however there was nothing in return. Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur For the millionth time, mr. @Beshogur - that's because you are literally arguing with the article itself. You're wrong, not I xD GreatLeader1945 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You're bringing up stuff. And that terminology is not even appropriate on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur "You're bringing up stuff." False. @DeCausa confirmed my position in KZ's talk page discussion. You're arguing with the article. We can continue this pointless talking for eternity. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on Tunisia

Your recent editing history at Tunisia 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You were pointed to the edit warring policy six times on your talk page here before this sub thread on your edit warring on Tunisia. You also were taken to WP:AN/I at this thread regarding your edit warring. You still don't seem to have taken the seriousness of edit warring to heart. If you want to be part of this community, you're going to have to learn to work with it. Discussing issues with an article is one of the earliest steps of dispute resolution. If your go to "solution" to "fixing" an article is attempting to brute force your will onto articles, you will find yourself not part of this community. It does not matter how right you think you are. If you're not capable of discussing things, you will be gone from this community. You were previously concerned with how long a block would be for edit warring. You got off light here with the 24 hour block I placed on you. Very light. Some administrators would have indefinitely blocked you because you are showing a blatant disregard for our edit warring policy and a very strong willingness to brute force your way around this project. You are very clearly demonstrating you are not capable of working with this community. Either you change your ways, or you will be gone. I hope I've been clear. If any of this is unclear, then by all means ask. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft You got a point and I take a note. But I'm glad that, in the end, I won in the Kazakhstan infobox debate with this user and his very biased and untrue claims because the factology was on my side! If there wasn't this edit war, there'd only be a discussion between me and him at the talk page and he'd say that he's "right" and that'd be it! This edit war brought the attention of many other users, some of which agreed with my position and backed it with additional objective sources etc.! You know, as in life, sometimes you have to "brute force" to deal with untruth ;) I will also suggest you to watch your tone, we're not at the police station here xD. Cheers. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no 'winning' in Wikipedia. There is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and that is what should be followed. Nowhere in there does that policy suggest edit warring as a means to an end. Nowhere in that policy does it suggest that brute force is a way forward. If you find your 'success' as justification for future edit warring, you will be blocked, and possibly indefinitely. Your choice how you proceed. As to my tone, sorry you don't like it. I don't see any reason to change it, since you have been quite instransigent with regards to edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

GreatLeader1945, when I read your latest message above, I seriously considered blocking you indefinitely, because you were openly declaring your intention to continue to edit contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and also to the whole ethos of Wikipedia. I strongly urge you to take every word of what Hammersoft has said to heart. Seriously. JBW (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@JBW "when I read your latest message above, I seriously considered blocking you indefinitely, because you were openly declaring your intention to continue to edit contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and also to the whole ethos of Wikipedia" - False. I literally wrote at the very begining "I take a note" in bold and italic. What message were you reading?! GreatLeader1945 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Time stamp 08:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC). Pretty simple really. You make it clear from your perspective that without edit warring/brute force, that situation would not have resolved favorably. Regardless, semantic discussions aren't going to resolve this. What will is your personal understanding and adherence to our edit warring policy. If you don't, and you return to edit warring after this block expires, I think it highly likely the next block will be indefinite. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft As I said, I will not participate anymore in edit wars, and if I do, block me permanently. If there is something that I don't agree with, I will create a talk page topic. Cheers. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm The Herald. I noticed that you recently removed content from India without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald: "I noticed that you recently removed content from India without adequately explaining why" – I "adequately" and explicitly explained why, what are you even talking about? - It's written in the the edit summary. You should explain what you don't agree with. As for the sandbox part – it's funny as you didn't even saw that I'm an extended autoconfirmed user with over 600 edits xD. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit counts doesn't matter at all. When you are removing huge texts from a featured article, (one of the oldest and highly watched) you must discuss it in the talk page for consensus and then after obtaining consensus, you may proceed. The given summary was not at all adequate to justify why that section had to be removed. The article and the lede had undergone multiple peer views from the community. Hence, consensus is a must. Kindly proceed to talk page and discuss it there. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald "Edit counts doesn't matter at all." It does. The sandbox advice implies that I'm a new user with a few edists that doesn't know how Wikipedia works, which is not the case. "The given summary was not at all adequate to justify why that section had to be removed". No, it was. It's a hilarious propaganda statement which has NO place in Wikipedia. That you don't like this fact is not my problem. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors with over a million edits still use sandboxes on a daily basis for testing out wiki syntax and for test edits. Nothing wrong in that. If you feel it was a propaganda, kindly discuss it in the talk page. It will be removed otherwise. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Elon Musk. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

GreatLeader1945 clearly has no respect for the WP ethos. Reading thru the talk page it's clear the time has come to issue a permaban. 129.222.253.198 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

While their approach to dealing with disagreements with other editors is not ideal, they have made a considerable improvement in how they do so compared to how they started out, and I don't see any justification for getting rid of them now. There is a significant amount of constructive editing. JBW (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald Why did you remove the info about the Juche calendar when it's not in the Kim Il Sung page as far as I can see? And thus its place is right next to the mentioned "Day of the sun", his birthday, on which this year-numbering system is based. As for the edit summary, I very often writen one, you can see this in my user edit history. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As the edit summary in my revert said, the addition was uncited and the section you removed had references from a reliable source. You removed an already well cited section and added an uncited sentence with an edit summary that said important addition. That, sadly isn't self explanatory. Kindly provide citations for every additions in Wikipedia from reliable source, especially when it is a biography. Also, please be more specific in your edit summaries, and make sure you give a rationale for removing well cited sections from the article. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald You're joking, right? You DON'T need to cite that the Juche calendar is based on his birth year, as it's explicitly stated in the ARTICLE about the calendar: "The Juche calendar, named after the Juche ideology, is the system of year-numbering used in North Korea. It begins with the birth of Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea. His birth year, 1912 in the Gregorian calendar, is "Juche 1" in the Juche calendar. The calendar was adopted in 1997, three years after the death of Kim Il Sung." Not sure if you even realize what you said. In this case citing about a certain fact is ONLY used when a Wikipedia article about this said fact does not exist yet, and so one needs to point to EXTERNAL sources. I think there's a serious WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT problem emerging here. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Kindly read my previous message to understand what I am trying to say. The calander fact you mentioned was already cited, but your edit removed it. You have to provide citations, be it inline or external, especially a fact that you stated. I really don't doubt your competence and I have been in the same place as you. But as a newbie, you have to understand that citations are necessary, especially if it's a biography. Sorry, if you feel I'm patronising, but removing a cited sentence and adding an uncited fact constitute as vandalism, but I chose to go with an edit summary warning. Please provide citation or inline cite for every edit. Bluelinks are not equivalent to references, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Maybe it was a copy paste error from your part to remove that reference. If you are still not convinced, you may approach WP:TEAHOUSE or other reference desks. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald "Please provide citation or inline cite for every edit." – no one does that for EVERY edit and you know that. "Bluelinks are not equivalent to references, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source" – again WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT problem on your part. Bluelinks point to articles about proven facts, events, people etc. PRO-VEN. And they are backed by external references in these said articles. Else, said articles wouldn't exist and would get deleted. One ABSOLUTELY can use blue links in this case and that's exactly what most users do.

@JBW @Hammersoft @Firefangledfeathers. Tagging you because there is a serious problem arising here. GreatLeader1945GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, since you have alerted me to this, GreatLeader1945, I will say a few things. Also alerting The Herald. Because of lack of time I have not prof read this message, so please forgive any typoes or other silly mistakes.

I don't think either of you is completely wrong, but neither of you is completely right either. There is quite an extended disagreement between you, and I'm not going to try to comment on every point that has come up: I will restrict myself to a few points.

Herald, it is true that in principle all Wikipedia article content should be cited, but GreatLeader1945 is of course right in saying that in practice that doesn't happen. Probably if one of us searched we could find a Wikipedia article somewhere which says that grass is green without a citation, and I doubt that anyone would object to that. (Well, not anyone other than a troll.) However, it is true that any substantial statement should have a citation, and it is a very firm policy that any uncited statement which has been challenged must have a citation to a reliable source. Also your original message, saying "you recently removed content from India without adequately explaining why", was not very helpful. That sort of message is perhaps adequate for an editor who has given no explanation at all, but GreatLeader1945 did give some explanation, and if you thought that explanation wasn't adequate it would have been more helpful to explain why. GreatLeader, it is not true that a citation to an external source is needed only when there is no Wikipedia article is available to link to. There are sever reasons why Wikipedia policy does not accept a link to a Wikipedia article as a source; here are two of them. Firstly, a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. Ideally, as you say, a Wikipedia article should consist entirely of "proven facts", but unfortunately that is not always the case: there are many places where articles contain inaccurate, doubtful, or misleading information, whether because of good-faith mistakes by editors or because of deliberate misrepresentation. Many editors spend a large amount of time correcting such inaccuracies in articles, but the mere fact that a Wikipedia article says something is not by any means reliable proof. Secondly, suppose that, as a citation for a statement in article A, I post a blue link to article B, which contains an external citation for that fact, but some months later someone editing article B removes the information from there. Then suppose that a year after that someone reading article A wishes to verify the fact in question. How much searching through the editing history are they expected to do? Anyway, Wikipedia policy is that a link to another Wikipedia article is not acceptable as a citation. Such links are intended as a convenient way for readers to find further information relevant to the subject of the article they are reading, not as a way of enabling verification of content of that article.

OK, there are a few comments. I have not by any means covered every aspect of your discussion, but I hope some or all of what I have said may be helpful to one or both of you. However, the thing which strikes me most about the discussion between you is that both of you could try to conduct the discussion in a less combative spirit. That way both of you would be more likely to listen constructively to what the other one is saying, and therefore more likely to hear and understand the constructive points the other is making; both of you do have constructive points to make. JBW (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I second JBW's points here. I'll add that WP:BURDEN is pretty clear that editors adding unsourced material should add citation when it's challenged. Tagging is better than removal if most editors agree the material is likely true.

I take very seriously the definition of vandalism and the sanctity of the word "unexplained" in "unexplained removal", and I'd encourage everyone to move forward with a commitment to respect good-faith contributions and contributors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the inputs. I might have come out harsh with the warnings and usage of the term vandalism/unexplained removal. I did try to explain the changes and reverts, but I couldn't provided some more links to policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. I wasn't trying to sound combative. But I will try to put forward a clearer message next time.
About the previous revert in India article, that issue must be discussed in the talk page for consensus before removing a paragraph from the lede with adequately explain why it is a propaganda of sort. For such an old FA with multiple peer review, that is the exact procedure to determine what is to be added in the lede and what shouldn't be. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the India situation, but I would agree in principle that removal of a paragraph from the lead of an FA is the sort of obviously contentious move that would best be discussed first at talk. The Herald, it's great to see you take the feedback so well here. Happy editing to all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Skyerise. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Demiurge, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to As-salamu alaykum. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The short vowel /e/ or the diphthong /ej/ do not exist in formal Modern Standard Arabic phonology. Idell (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Idell Bruhhh. It ain't matter. No one pronounces it that way and that's audible in the respective audio file. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello GreatLeader1945, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Herald Thank you very much! I wish to you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year! GreatLeader1945 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

NK romanization standards?

I saw that you requested a move of Ko Yong-hui -> Ko Yong Hui in October last year because of assumed standardized romanization of DPRK names. I'm skeptical of the reasoning you gave, although it's possible that that's really the romanization we should use (because it's her WP:COMMONNAME).

The page you gave for evidence, Romanization of Korean (North), doesn't mention anything about hyphenization in names. You also gave Park Chung Hee as evidence for some reason, but that's not a supporting piece of evidence, as Park's name was romanized that way because of WP:COMMONNAME and he's South Korean. Really, all romanizations for Korean people's names are first and foremost governed by common name.

You should be defaulting to WP:NCKOREAN. That is established policy, and nowhere is it written in there that NK names are not hyphenated by default. If you'd like to add that policy, propose it on that page. toobigtokale (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, you did that as an undiscussed move. I feel like it at least should have been discussed. Have you moved any other pages under this reasoning? toobigtokale (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale Don't know what are you talking about but generally the 'evidence' I give is that the pages "Kim Il-sung", "Kim Jong-il" and "Kim Jong-un" became "Kim Il Sung", "Kim Jong Il" and "Kim Jong Un" respectively some time ago. See Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 9#Requested move 6 April 2023 for more info about why a hyphen should not be used in romanizations of names of people from the DPRK/related to the DPRK. As for WP:COMMONNAME - that doesn't count here, as as per the requested move discussion I linked, the said names were written half the times with a hyphen and half the times without one. Again, see the discussion I've linked. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen the discussion before, something that you should have linked. I'm confused by your reasoning. That discussion is not policy yet, and I don't think you're interpreting it correctly. If it went into force, WP:COMMONNAME would still be the highest authority, and then we'd default to what significant style guides do, which is to not hyphenate.

You're implying here that proof was given for Ri, but she's a separate person from the three Kims. No common name for her has been rigorously established yet, so unilaterally removing the hyphen still wouldn't make sense.

If you want to make a unilateral change to NK name style, propose it. But if your version of the proposal includes overriding common name in all scenarios, I'm skeptical that'll pass. toobigtokale (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Watch your tone and probably see the discussion before commenting maybe? GreatLeader1945 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, tone reads a little sharp. I read the discussion after you linked it, I meant that you should have linked it more explicitly in the move request or similar. Everything else in my recent reply is with the understanding of the thread you linked. Am I misunderstanding anything? toobigtokale (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If no reply within a week, I may request that the article be renamed back to the original btw. I'll make a post on her article talk page later toobigtokale (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You moved it back again without discussion, despite known challenge to the move. That goes against WP:RMUM; please make sure you understand that policy before doing something similar again in the future. toobigtokale (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

editwar

If you are reverted make a case at talk per wp:brd, do not edit war it back in. Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2.49.40.106 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC

please read this - RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC.

Let's try and sort this out on the talkpage please - you should not be requesting RFCs before you're made any real attempt at resolving the issue. 2.49.40.106 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:31.218.86.208, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. We are well into disruption territory here. I will warn you this one last time--and since you don't seem to understand, I'll repeat what I said: WARNING an IP editor after they are already blocked is useless, and IP addresses do NOT get blocked indefinitely. I understand if you don't understand that, but edit warring with an administrator over something like this is not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies You yourself are to be blamed, as you behaved illogically, not giving an explanation when I politely asked you to "please elaborate". Also at the Battle of Bakhmut talk page. Being "an administrator" does give you the right to behave illogically and ignore things other users address to you. There are many cases of administrators being blocked for behaving unconstructively and abusing their block right. I DID NOT "vandalize Wikipedia". Again, absolutely illogical statements from your side. I'll have to address this to the respective authorities if you continue with this behavior. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. 37.245.222.139 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Veverve (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)