User talk:LilertoadKhonthai

Hello LilertoadKhonthai, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

LilertoadKhonthai, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2013–14 Thai political crisis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please understand that political editing will not be tolerated.Fredtham59 (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3 editors already reverted one edit but you are stillWP:POVPUSH. Such behavior is against wiki regulation.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Alfasxp07 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC) ou are engaging yourself into edit war !!![reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

Khunthaibkk (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reconciliation attempt[edit]

I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place "Talkback|your username" on my talk between {{ }}.

Since it's creation 2013–14 Thai political crisis edits went very smoothly, editors accepting different point of views and little discussion on the talk page. If you look at the history, I personally do not have any arguments with other and my contribution on talk page is minimal. I saw some of my edits reverted, modified, reworded, I accepted most of the change made even I sometimes disagree and when strongly disagree always find a compromise through discussion on editors talk page. A fact is that most editors me include do not work to show a bad or good side of the protest as you said, but bring the best information in an encyclopedic manners. It has been possible as we are able to recognize our own bias and also presume other of being of good faith.

The situation dramatically changed since you started editing and now it is impossible to anyone to make any change without you challenged them on the talk page and disrupts progress towards improving the article. I invite you to auto critic yourself by looking back on what you said on the talk page, think about your competence in writing and understanding English, and learn extensively on wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will personally take distance, start next week.

Fredtham59 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I had personally offended you. I try my best to argue with reason. However, please understand that none of the cases were first challenged by me on the talk page. (The gunfight case was initiated by an anonymous contributor and when I added the fact that the protesters were praying, Jeanlepetit challenged me and told me to agree on the talk page.) Many of my own edits were challenged, and I do accept other people's views. I accept your reconciliation will also try to reduce the number of conflicts regarding the article. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I suggest that the members of the royal family should not be in the parties of civil conflict but in the membership section in the PDRC page info box.

Apologize accepted.

Concerning user 171.99.173 I think that every one noticed the writing pattern and that particular edit

PLEASE REMOVE THE UNPROVED STATEMENT AND OTHER UNPROVEN STATEMENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.175.120 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) --LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC

and I really hope to not see him again.

Concerning the royal family do as you wish. The NYT and many other newspaper start to speak about a "monachy network" behind the protest, so soon or later there is a high probability that some editors will bring the subject on the table.

Concerning the protester praying, I still think that a nice compromise is something like " protester praying in a bid to defy police order". I might not reflect the truth for those who was at the scene but it respect the article and on wikipedia news even biased have more weight than truth.

As you can see user talk page is a far better way to solve problems than talk page. Fredtham59 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the compromise, thank you for your flexibility. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LilertoadKhonthai, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi LilertoadKhonthai! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

You have a serious issue with edit-warring. If it continues, you will be blocked and the article will be protected. Please read WP:N, WP:V, WP:EDITWAR and also WP:BURDEN; i did inform you on Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis and your own talk page about some important rules that must be respected but you did not give a try or worse deliberately ignored them.

You are now in violation of Wikipedia's Three Revert Warning, as you have made —whether in whole or in part— more than three reverts to the 2013–14 Thai political crisis article in a 24-hour period. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Fred Tham ^{59 Do not bite, so talk !} 12:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]