User talk:Dankmemes2
Welcome!
|
April 2016
[edit]
Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eat Your Kimchi has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Dankmemes2, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Dankmemes2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assimilation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Genocide, you may be blocked from editing.
The article is about the general concept - which includes an internationally recognised legal definition, not more marginal specific uses.
If you wish to alter the scope of the article (which is effectively what you are arguing for), the WP:ONUS is on you to gain concensus, not on others to defend the pre-existing text, and particularly not to edit-war your favourite version back into the article. I know of NO instance where the general agreement is that genocide took place, which did not involve killing based on race. That there are marginal definitions that are based on other criteria does not alter this central fact. Pincrete (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:Pincrete The problem is that who determines what is a "recognized genocide" in this context? Academia? Specific political organizations? Certain countries? As stated earlier in my edit summaries as well as the article itself, recognition of certain events as genocide often varies depending on the organization/government. There have been cases where certain events have been considered by some governments as genocide of which there is scant evidence of deliberate mass killing (for example Canada and the Netherlands with the ongoing treatment of Uyghurs). There are also cases where an event has recognition as genocide by many countries/non-fringe organizations but whose recognition is not universal (ex. the Holodomor). And even cases where there's broad recognition of genocide, there are those who think otherwise (ex. the Turkish government with respect to the Armenian Genocide). In addition to the statement itself being unsourced, to say that mass killing has been present in "all recognized genocides" is highly misleading given genocides tend to have varying degrees of recognition as well as that the definition of genocide is contentious.
- Furthermore, you should not be accusing users of vandalism just because one makes a substantial change in the article. My edits were based on the varying definitions of the word genocide in the article as well as the fact that genocide "recognition" often varies, not just because it's my "favourite version". I apologize for reverting excessively, though.Dankmemes2 (talk)
Community Sanctions Alert
[edit] | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that in this edit to Xi Jinping, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jp×g 04:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Uyghurs, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 04:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, I did leave an edit summary explaining why I removed the content from the Xi Jinping article. As my summary said, the sources did not appropriately address the statements made in the content that I removed. Nearly all of them predated Xi Jinping's rise to power and subsequent statements, and the most recent one was an op-ed article. None of them directly addressed the statement that "China has taken very little action to achieve this, and China remains one of the worlds major pollutants with extremely poor environmental standards". For these reasons, I removed the content and left an edit summary explaining why.
- Secondly, with respect to the Uyghurs article, I was not trying to disrupt Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I changed the heading to match what the content of the articles said, not because I was "adding commentary and [...] personal analysis into articles". That the section was mostly about the persecution of Uyghurs and allegations of genocide rather than just genocide alone is not my "personal commentary" - it was precisely what the section was about.
- As per Wikipedia's guidelines, you should not quick to accuse others of bad faith. I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia's purpose or insert my commentary into articles mindlessly.Dankmemes2 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
please verify accuracy of Kentucky age of consent
[edit]In the 07:16, 24 November 2019 edit of Ages of consent in North America, you indicated the age of consent for Kentucky was outdated. Can you please verify whether this issue has been corrected (e.g. at Ages of consent in the United States)? Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
WikiProjects
[edit]Hi Dankmemes2, forgot to ping you, so here's a link to WT:LGBT#Question regarding the scope of this WikiProject. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)