Hi Paokara, Greetings to you. Source in the article does not indicate of Volkanoski' mother but only his father. Pls note that if you want to state Volkanoski's Greek mother, than pls provide source. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Thanks for uploading File:St George Dragons Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. An edit that you recently made to Book of Daniel seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tgeorgescu , you are mistaken, it was not a test. Please see the notes in the edit. Paokara777 (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC about it, which is going nowhere, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu, it goes nowhere because the proposed change from BC to BCE is not a change in date system or.. really of anything. BCE and CE are still based on BC and AD and denote the periods before and after Jesus was born. There is no purpose in changing them. Paokara777 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Jesus was born circa 4 Before Christ. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a straw man argument to try and shift the issue from one thing (changing BC to BCE) to the inaccuracy with our current dating system (4BC is the real BC). Which would you like to discuss? Paokara777 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far the policies and guidelines go, none of us was wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alexander Volkanovski, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – ².O.^Boxing 15:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) I've struck this warning in good faith. – ².O.^Boxing 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things on that page that are untrue and not sourced/cited.

The original claim that he was born in "shellharbour nsw" for instance is not sourced.

In any case, i have left you a source for my changes on his Wiki talk page. Paokara777 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to include citations when you add/change content. Continuing to make unsourced edits, whether they're correct or not, could lead to a block. Wikipedia:Citing sources would be worth a read.

Although it seems to be incorrect, the Shellharbour claim is indeed sourced. If you ever come across anything you think is unsourced (and you've thoroughly checked the references in the article) then feel free to remove it. – ².O.^Boxing 16:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're threatening to block my wiki account due to a correct edit i made?

are you alright bro? Paokara777 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is intended to prevent you from being blocked for making WP:UNSOURCED edits. – ².O.^Boxing 17:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, regarding your request to read "citing sources", when i made the edit, I intended on putting the source/citation in the edit summary box, however it didn't allow me to post that with a Youtube link. So published the correction without a source and started to draft a note in the talk page to address the change and to cite my source for the change, you reverted my edit and subsequently added the above note before i could publish my comments in the talk page.

Now in regards to being "blocked" may i remind you that Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive and that making a good will edit to a wiki page should not be met with a threat to block someone.

As per Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" Paokara777 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this edit summary gives no indication you were attempting to cite a source. So yeah, I reverted your edit...9 minutes later, and issued a standard {{subst:uw-unsourced2}} template (youve already had one friendly note about unsourced edits, so that was the first warning). You must not have noticed, but I decided to strike out that warning in good faith.

Secondly, you don't appear to have read the guidance on citing sources; posting a link in the edit summary or on the talk page isn't how it's done.

Lastly, no threat has been issued. I advised you that continuing to add unsourced content could lead to a block. If such a block was handed out, it would be to prevent further unsourced edits to BLPs. If you want to ignore my advice and crack on with adding unsourced content...then go for it. No skin off my nose. Cheerio. – ².O.^Boxing 17:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have edited or added to any wiki article has EVER been unsourced. Sure, maybe i have not gone about it in the right way (as you state in your second paragraph) and making a technical mistake on Wikipedia is something that i am likely to be guilty with as i am a casual editor. However BANS are to be used for repeat vandals and violators. Not for someone making good edits. Your note on my talk page threatening on blocks is not in good faith of this wiki. Goodbye Paokara777 (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a short memory, because this is quite clearly unsourced. It's not a technical mistake. It's an unsourced edit. An edit that is still unsourced, because you still haven't added a citation. – ².O.^Boxing 02:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a source now Paokara777 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sea Peoples, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:ERA, do not change era designations without valid reason or consensus on the talk page. Donald Albury 14:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald Albury, thank you for the kind welcome, however note that i have been using wikipedia and making contributions for quite some time. Regarding the above, the original non stub wiki for this article is BC and it was changed against MOS:ERA protocol to a CE article. I am simply reverting this change.

If, however, you think this should constitute a conversation about why this article needs to be changed to a CE article rather than a BC article please state your arguments in the Talk:Sea_Peoples page. Paokara777 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on Talk:Sea Peoples. Donald Albury 13:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Leap second. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please read MOS:ERA Donald Albury 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donald Albury, interesting to find you here again. The change from AD to CE was against the MOS:ERA which is that the established ERA notations should not be changed "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". My revert was not nonstandard or unusual, in fact the original change from an AD to a CE article was nonstandard which is why i reverted it back. Paokara777 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other era designaters in the article use CE/BCE, which appears to be the standard for the article. Donald Albury 12:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, The original established article was BC/AD and it was unnecessarily changed. I will revert that change to comply with MOS:ERA "which is that the established ERA notations should not be changed "unless there is some substantial reason for the change"." Paokara777 (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]