User talk:Goodtiming8871/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cut and paste procedure

Simplified procedure for archiving

Edit the talk page, copying material you wish to archive to your computer's clipboard. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:username/Archive N" where N is the lowest whole number for which no archive exists. Your archive will be the N-th archive. Searching should say that this page does not exist. Click the provided link to create/start it. Paste the clipboard contents into this archive and add {{Talk archive}} to the top and bottom of the code. Publish the new archive. Delete copied material from main talk page with edit summary mentioning the name of the new archive. If an archive box doesn't already exist on the main talk page, add the line {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} below the WikiProject tags and publish. (This will not be necessary if the main talk page already contains the line {{Talk header}}, since this template automatically contains a list of archives). That is it, you are finished!

Archiving_a_talk_page Automatic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page

Your draft article, Draft:Peace treaty with North Korea

Hello, Goodtiming8871. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Peace treaty with North Korea".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder and advise for Wiki-policy. I would back up this talk for my future reference. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

IP PBX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Audio

Panmunjom Declaration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Donghae

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 North Korea–United States summit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2024

Your recent editing history at 2024 United States presidential election 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.
Note that the page is subject to 1RR restrictions and you have now re-inserted content violating this. Please self-revert. Raladic (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For completeness sake, as I'm not a fan of splitting discussions across different talk pages, linking to the reply to the user who responded to me on my talk page to explain the heightened care required to edit WP:CTOP articles subject to WP:1RR restrictions to ensure they are aware of the policy going forward to avoid breaking it again in the future. Raladic (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you open Rfc: Trump photo part 2?

Dear Goodtiming8871, Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I am begging you to open the closed RfC: Trump photo part 2. Can you please reopen it? Thank you. 1. RfC: Trump photo part 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I will open the new "RfC: Trump photo " after asking feedback from other users, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Teknologi Positif is a blocked sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I think the user in question was new to Wikipedia, and made a mistake while using it because he or she did not know the applicable rules. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

They added fake support votes ([1], [2]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871, related to the above, I have two comments.

1. In this edit, you omitted the closing braces of the {{closed rfc top}} which has hidden some of the page content. Also, you placed the {{closed rfc top}} before the section heading. Like other similar tags, it must be placed after the heading, so that when the archiving bot arrives, it takes heading and tag together, instead of potentially separating them - which would happen if the RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox section and the RfC: Trump infobox photo sections were archived on different bot runs. Both of these were fixed by Nojus R (talk · contribs) with this edit. Third, if you use {{closed rfc top}} you must also remove the {{rfc}} tag, see WP:RFCEND.
2. In this edit, you copied the {{rfc}} tag, including all of its parameters and the prior matter, from another RfC (Teknologi Positif made precisely this error three times in the last few days). Template:Rfc#Usage explicitly states do not choose your own value for the |rfcid= parameter, or re-use a value that is in use (or was previously used) on another RfC – instead, always let Legobot select a value. The reason is that Legobot maintains an off-wiki table of every RfC that has ever existed, and it uses the rfcid of each one as a unique key value. If two RfCs share one rfcid, Legobot can only track one of them - and is liable to get them mixed up.

Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Redrose64Thank you for your kind advice on how to use the closing braces.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tenditous

Please read wp:tenditious, as starting a new thread that is a duplicate of one you already started by be in violation of it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specify the subject of talk that I can check, I will merge it to the relevant topic . I tried but I was unable to find the subject related with CNN interview fact check. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

[[3]] and [[4]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Thread retitled from "Kamala Harris’s Track Record: Big Spending, Wokeness, Equity and Flip Flops". Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As you see, I merged the topic to the related main heading, and I am asking feedback about the text News source from CNN whether it can be used Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goodtiming8871. Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing

Please get consensus at the talk for your changes to the article. On Wikipedia, it is common courtesy to follow WP:BRD when your bold edit is reverted. Also, it looks like you have already been warned about edit warring, so once again, please do not violate WP:1RR on the 2024 United States presidential election article. Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will take you to WP:3RRNB for a 1RR violation if you undo my undo of your revert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no agreement that only one of the two main candidates could be criticized, and that the other candidate could not be edited even if there was a reliable source. I sent comments to the relevant users on the talk page, so I will wait for other users' comments or edits. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. Having a reliable source does not guarantee inclusion. None of the sentences you added were significant Harris controversies. And even if they were, the tone of the sentences was blatant POV-pushing. Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The part currently recorded in Lead, the tone of the sentences, and other users' opinions that it is only POV-pushing for one candidate, should also be revised. For further discussion, please comment in the discussion below that started on October 15th. [[5]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to POV-push on the article, you could face sanctions (including a topic ban). Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at some examples of cases where neutrality issues were raised, including the Lead section of the article by several users, it is a common opinion of many users that they are trying to improve the current biased article. Trying to prevent other users from working together to improve neutrality is Unconstructive Action, please make suggestions in the relevant article's talk page.

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]] [2] [[9]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6