User talk:Kb217

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kb217! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mhhossein and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Mhhossein ^talk 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hosay[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that you added some info to Hosay and Ashura. Thanks for your edits. Can you add Template:Infobox recurring event to the Hosay which makes it more informative? I've done it here in Arba'een Pilgrimage if you need an example. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its vs It's[edit]

Kb217, could you please go back to the pages where you reverted my edits and change them back to the edits I made, which were correct? The text had used "it's" (a contraction for "it is" or "it has") when the context called for the possessive "its". This is probably the most common mistake made, even by native speakers, and I should have labeled it as the grammatical mistake it is instead of saying it was a "typo" - my bad. Please check out this page ^[1] or do a Google search for "its vs it's" to get a whole slew of references on the matter. Thank you! MousePotato (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

MBS[edit]

You are edit-warring stupid stuff like the name of the chateau -- it's not "known as" the Chateau Louis XIV, it freaking well IS the Chateau Louis XIV, and you've removed a wiki;ink to the relevant article. Newspaper titles go in italics. Don't remove stuff like that just so others can clean it up again. Also, in standard idiomatic English, "confided in" is not the way we talk about journalistic practice. Sources "claim" something. Finally, you made those changes AFTER I posted a notice on the talk page about them without discussing them. That's bad wiki etiquette. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article in question, it is clear that the Times's reporting is based on more than the claims or confidences of anonymous sources -- it involves documentary evidence as well. I've changed to account for that. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.[edit]

Hi. See wp:recentism (over reporting on a recent event that hasn’t got any historical merit), giving wp:undue weight (giving too much weight to an event whose importance hasn’t been determined, also too much detail - a three paragraph section that covers a 100 year history, then 2 paragraphs of 1 event). wp:synthesis (sources that don’t actually mention the actual controversy, it’s therefore original research). EdRivers56 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at Daily Mail. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. –Davey2010^Talk 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Daily Mail 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. –Davey2010^Talk 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kb217 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kb217. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ♠ 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

[1]