User talk:Gregorius deretius

September 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2017 North Korea crisis, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2017 North Korea crisis. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to National Ecologic Party. Hayman30 (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Hayman30. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Darius robin. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darius robin (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Gregorius deretius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Rogue state. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! KNHaw ^(talk) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue State Edits[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Rogue State regarding South Africa. I think your edits would be better suited to the article Pariah_state, as defined below:

"Rogue states can also be differentiated from so-called "pariah states", such as Belarus and Zimbabwe, who are said by some organisations to abuse the human rights of their populations while not being considered a tangible threat beyond their own borders, although the terms have been used interchangeably."

If you still think Rogue State is a better fit for South Africa, could you please put a message stating your case on the article talk page before redoing your edits? I think it's best if you explain your reasoning so other people don't remove further edits like I did.

Anyways, if you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page (below) or reply here.

Thanks for editing!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017 (continued)[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2017 North Korea crisis, 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. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests 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.
When you add content and someone reverts it, you should not simply re-add it to the article. You should discuss it on the talk page and it should only be re-added if there is consensus to do so. Consensus does not mean one or two people agreeing with you, or the that you think the information is factual. It means that most people presenting policy based arguments support the edit. Even then, it's best to let someone else add the material if they believe consensus has been reached. - MrX 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of totalitarian regimes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please stop this. Change the main articles for these countries to reflect what you want to add to the list, and make sure there are multiple sources, not just one. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big tent totalitarian states[edit]

You really need sources for claiming that any country is a "big tent totalitarian state". Doug Weller talk 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists need to reflect the main articles, issue with sources[edit]

This should be obvious. We can't have a list saying something about a country that the country's article doesn't say. And you need more than one source, again something that should be obvious. Government sources such as the Voice of America aren't really reliable sources for this sort of thing. You are new and you need to learn more about our policies and guidelines. WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are policy, you can't just ignore them. I like your userbox on your userpage, by the way. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite sources[edit]

I noticed this: <ref>"How Facebook powers money machines for obscure political 'news' sites - From Macedonia to the San Francisco Bay, clickbait political sites are cashing in on Trumpmania – and they're getting a big boost from Facebook"</ref>

Citations need to be verifiable (have you read WP:VERIFY yet?), and that gave no clue as to where it came from. Here are some videos that should help. Wikipedia:Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Patriota. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't speak portuguese ,you aren't brazilian and you dont know nothing about patriota. Gregorius deretius (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a response to my warning? Doug Weller talk 19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the brazilian version of the patriota article ,im being honest ,my editions on patriota were based in the brazilian version of the article

Gregorius deretius (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several things. First, if you are copying from that article without attribution, it's a copyright violation. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Secondly, different language Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines. That said at least it has a lot of sources although I can't comment on whether they'd meet WP:RS. But none of this has anything to do with my not being Brazilian, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Gregorius deretius. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]