Hi. I'm sorry to see you got blocked, particularly as discussion on Lordship of Ireland seemed to be drawing to a close. I know it's not a very nice situation to be in, but it's only for 24 hours which isn't a long time, so hopefully that will be enough for things to calm down a bit. I realise you're frustrated that things on these two articles aren't going your way, but the topic of Irish history and politics is, to put it as mildly as possible, controversial so it's best to try and keep discussion on the talk page and escalate things up from there, including possibly raising the issue at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If you want my view, I'd love a drive up the County Antrim coast, and the road through the Cork and Kerry mountains between Glengarriff and Killarney is wonderful - and they'll still be there when you and I are dead and gone, and that's where I prefer my Ireland-related editing and reading to be focused on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to International Association of the Congo, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pktlaurence. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sire, I am really grateful and appreciate your warm reminder, that I almost forgot my act actually ruined the history. My most sincere apologies are delivered here. However, I found the page "Enlightened Spain blah blah blah" in a dire need to be moved to a more concise simple and straightforward title 'Bourbon Spain', and the damn move button keeps telling me that the latter is already occupied by a redirection page with the same name, so if you would kindly tell me what to do about this, you will be even more appreciated. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the instructions located at WP:RM#CM to request a move. Sro23 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to inform you that my move does not fall into the category of a controversial move.
'There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title'
The existing page in my target title is simply just a redirect page with nothing. But still I could not make the change. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

???!!!

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for improperly moving pages, as you did at Bourbon Spain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This block is to prevent further damage to the site with your edits. Please review WP:MOVE, WP:MOS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:RM. When you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of how and when to move pages, and you can assure us you will do it properly (attaining consensus beforehand, etc), then you can be unblocked. If this block expires before then and you continue your disruption, you will be blocked indefinitely (or until such a time that you can be trusted to edit). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggest you read Military history of Finland during World War II. Germany had refrained from supporting Finland during the Winter War (due to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), unlike the Allies (and neutrals like Norway, Sweden, and Italy), who sent arms and other aid. The German conquest of Denmark and Norway clearly isolated Finland from non-German controlled countries and limited Finland's options. Not saying that Finland wouldn't have joined Germany in the attack on the Soviet Union eventually anyway, but the fact that Germany controlled the access to Finland made that much more likely by essentially cutting off contact between the Allies and Finland. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pktlaurence. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pktlaurence. 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Formulaonewiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. —Formulaonewiki 00:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to message you here instead of on the discussion because it's really washing out the relevant discussion. I think you are severly mistaken over the arrangements of governance in Guernsey, in particular with regard to healthcare and funding etc. Guernsey receives no financial support from the UK government for any of its sectors, including healthcare. The States of Guernsey decide on their own taxes and social security, and those locally raised taxes alone fund the local healthcare system and other state-funded infrastructure without support from the UK. As such, there is no reciprocal agreement between the UK and the islands, meaning residents visiting the other country/territory cannot make use of the other's healthcare without paying out of their own pocket. —Formulaonewiki 17:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki:FOA thanks for your kind redirection. Btw you guys don't use the revered NHS?! Also could you please kindly provide a more detailed explanation to 'they mostly just get on with things on their own'? Any specific examples? I will wait for your answers before I provide my replies towards your previous message. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By that I mean the day-to-day running of the Bailiwick is handled entirely by the States of Guernsey without UK government interference. Like I've explained, the UK government only gets involved where the islands require defence (i.e. in the event of war) and international relations (so the most recent example would be Brexit, which has influenced Guernsey's special agreement with the EU to be part of the customs area and benefit from free movement but not becoming part of the EU). Occasionally the UK government attempts to put political pressure on Guernsey to change its tax regime and change some of the laws surrounding freedom of information about who-owns-what-company (so people like Jimmy Carr can't hide their dubious financial arrangements so easily), but that tends to be limited to just lip-service; the UK government is unable to force Guernsey to change its laws and so Guernsey remains a low tax jurisdiction and fully in control of its tax system. So, by and large, the only recent times the UK government has actually interfered with Guernsey just getting on with their own thing has been indirectly through Brexit or directly but ineffectively through occasionally asking them nicely (though fruitlessly) to be a bit less of a tax haven.

Regarding the NHS question — indeed, we do not have it here! It's a shame but as we don't contribute any taxes toward the UK government pot, they understandably don't let us just leech off their wonderful free healthcare service. We have a sort of local tax-funded equivalent called the Medical Specialist Group (MSG) to cover more expensive specialist surgeries etc. so people aren't financially crippled by an unfortunate life event, but it doesn't cover anywhere near as much as the NHS (such as GP appointments, minor visits to A&E etc.) so a lot of people get private health insurance. Over a decade ago, the MSG and the NHS had a reciprocal agreement meaning UK citizens were covered should they need medical care while in Guernsey (and vice versa), but unfortunately that agreement ended and now in the event that you're not in your home country you'll have to front the costs of healthcare yourself.

I apologise if things have gotten a bit frosty over on the discussion page, I just feel like some of your arguments were based on false assumptions and so was frustratedly trying to correct them without going off on a tangent from the purpose of the discussion. I hope the above answers some of your questions, but let me know if I've missed anything. —Formulaonewiki 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the NHS issue, perhaps integrating more into England might not sound like an idea that's too bad. Like being a new county in England, you pay your tax to her Majesty, but you can earn seats in Westminster and services of British physicians (consider them best on earth). I personally enjoyed a few services from NHS when I was studying in Britain, and I found no reason not to call it the best (system) on earth.

BTW, you did miss something😂. My main point was actually to ask you about what exactly does the Islandic privy council do? I mean, seriously speaking they can't sunbath on Jersey beaches 24/7, right? Pktlaurence (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Maybe I wasn't clear: The island doesn't have its own Privy Council, so any reference I made to a Privy Council was referring to the UK government's Privy Council which is supposedly responsible for stepping in in extreme circumstances to ensure the 'good government' of the islands, but this has very little practical meaning anymore and the supposed power they actually still have to legislate for the islands in such situations is highly disputed. While NHS healthcare would be wonderful for islanders to have, there are several reasons why Guernsey doesn't just defer to being part of the UK or part of England and paying tax to HMRC, starting with some very complicated constitutional stuff (our whole legal system is founded in Norman-French law, not English law and so it would require the overhaul of centuries of case law precedent and legislation), the removal of an entire cultural and national identity, and probably the main reason — money: Guernsey significantly benefits from its separate tax regime and it's distinct legislation surrounding the establishment of companies, structure and reserved powers in trust funds etc. It's not a coincidence that the largest sector on the island is finance! Companies and wealthy individuals will pay a lot to come here and pay lower tax than other places, and the States of Guernsey benefit from that too much to throw it away for healthcare. —Formulaonewiki 19:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB Guernsey is also quite an appealing place for companies and individuals to locate their financial affairs as it's still one of the 'good' tax havens on most lists due to their attempts to comply with at least some of the EU's tax avoidance regulations (as opposed to Bermuda which is put on a 'black list' of bad tax havens) and so they can come here without badly tarnishing their reputation. To this end, a lot of International/Offshore branches of banks (Santander, Natwest, RBS etc.) are based there alongside many finance companies. —Formulaonewiki 20:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So basically the Brit government almost does nothing to the CD isles, Islanders can not enjoy any social welfare when they go to Britannia mainland and also vice versa, the only thing they have do with Britain is that they use British passports, and the only thing Brit government does to Guernsey is to talk diplomacy on their behalf? Alright, maybe being a new English county doesn't really sound like a bad idea.

BTW, I sorta could understand your hometown pride since we both come from small towns in similar situation. I sorta envy the way how the CD archipelagos are governed—if our sovereign could try not to (or less, at the very least) stick their noses in such an anschluss-esque manner. Assuming you know what happened last Summer. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I know, you guys run the continental and the Brits run the common, right? Well, and I know that offshoring thing also. My clan owned quite a sizable plot of land in the rurals (land is an extremely valuable commodity here!), so our elders regged a shell corp. and then actually offshored it in Guernsey. That was decades, way before I was born, though. That was approximately high cold war, when we're still flying UJ ensigns.Pktlaurence (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of change of law... Yeah. Last spring, our imbecilic puppet government tried to change one law quasi-forcefully. Just damn bloody one. And I assume you know what happened following in June. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I hope you can see why having some other clueless editor labelling my attempts at explaining how little influence the UK government has over the Crown Dependencies as 'silly nationalism' was rather irksome when I was just trying to give an honest explanation. We're definitely in a better situation than many similar territories with ties to sovereign states. I can't say I'm all too familiar with your situation, but I certainly sympathise with living under a bad government. —Formulaonewiki 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki:At least you know our government is imbecile and abysmal. BTW, do you think ye olde Islanders are like territories in personal unions with HM, like in the case of pre-war Iceland? Pktlaurence (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know very much about pre-war Iceland, but having read the personal union article I'd say it certainly bears some resemblance of the relationship between Guernsey and the UK. Perhaps not quite to the same extent, given that Guernsey requires the UK to represent its interests at certain international meetings where it has no seat (e.g. the UN). Additionally, perhaps the fact that we get dragged out with them as a result of Brexit suggests at least some, though relatively small, level of being too interlinked — and probably more than required for it to be a mere personal union. —Formulaonewiki 11:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pre-war Iceland were also diplomatically represented by Denmark, and the nominal commander of their local army is also the Danish king. Most personal unions also work in the similar MilDip mechanisms. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you warring again now? The RfC isn't complete -- and either way, everything else looks on course to be separated out anyway so why do it regardless? —Formulaonewiki 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: And I think listing them inside the sub-list is a very respectful way to treat their differences with uk mainland. We already have overwhelming consensus, but it has already been a week and im still yet to see any changes. I once suggested before the changes of RfC are implemented, its best for things to be unified before the big change. And i think its you who started warring first by undoing my edits. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pktlaurence reported by User:United States Man (Result: ). Thank you. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tlatelolco massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1968 Olympics. 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) 06:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:H&K HK433 lateral view.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough (and blocked twice for it) to know better than to start edit wars, as you've done at Kingdom of Prussia and Prussia. You need to justify your proposed changes on the talk page, not try to force them through regardless of opposition from other editors. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on these articles, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article{s} generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

In one of your edit summaries, you point out that WP:BRD is not policy -- that is correct. However, it has npt prevented editors from being blocked from editing for refusing to it follow it as a Wikipedia best proactice. It is in your interest to discuss your changes on the articles talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your recent edit to Internal conflict in Myanmar in compliance with MOS:FLAGS, specifically this section. TL;DR: Using the full name of a country makes it easier for editors to navigate if they are not familiar with a country's flag or abbreviation. For example, a common mistake is confusing Switzerland's abbreviation CH with China's abbreviation CN. Using full country names avoids this. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

French conquest of Algeria

added a link pointing to Louis d'Orléans

Presidio

added a link pointing to Native Americans

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French conquest of Algeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis d'Orléans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2021 Myanmar protests has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 Myanmar protests. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at 2021 Myanmar protests. 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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 Myanmar protests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 Myanmar protests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Again, you have both me and CentreLeftRight reverting you, so the onus is on you to stop and discuss. You will find yourself at ANI if you continue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Template:Z33 ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]