I noticed your recent edit to Pisces (astrology) 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.
I noticed your recent edit to Pisces (astrology) 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:AKS471883/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! AKS471883,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not replace valid templates with manual calculations as you did with your edits to Australia's entry at List of countries and dependencies by population.[1]{{poptoday}} is used to automatically calculate the daily population based based on date in data templates, specifically {{Data Australia}} in this case, making it unnecessary to perform manual calculations. Your change to Australia's population was inaccurate and misleading, being based on data that was 6 months out of date. It resulted in a population of 24,145,070 being shown for today's population while the official population clock actually showed 24,156,200. The daily rate of change is 960, while your edits claimed 815. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please do not remove data templates.[2] Also, please provide sources for your changes, and at least use edit summaries, as you have previously been asked to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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, and seek consensus with them. 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.
Since you continue to ignore the requests made above to not replace data templates with manual calculations,[3] it seems that a formal warning is necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to List of countries and dependencies by population 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.
Hello, AKS471883. 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.
Hello, AKS471883. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.
Hello, AKS471883. 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 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.
I know I'm a little late posting this but thanks for fixing my edit at Endling. I was so caught up on how Vaquitas needed to stay in water to live that I wasn't thinking it all the way through and about how they're actually mammals. We all have those moments. Pancakes654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you have been warned previously about removing data templates from this article, on no less than four occasions. As you are well aware there is an editnotice that warns about removing the data templates, as well as customised notes next to each of the data templates. All of these warn that removal without providing justification will result in reversion, yet you blatantly ignored all 20 notes. You've also been asked 3 times to use edit summaries and yet refuse to do so. If you remove data templates again, make unsourced changes and don't start using edit summaries I intend taking the matter to WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AKS471883. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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.
Hello, AKS471883. 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.
You've been warned previously on multiple occasions about removing data templates from this article and yet you still made this edit! Please explain why you did this after numerous warnings. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! JACKINTHEBOX • TALK17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are making a number of good edits to this list. Some of your edits are, however, problematic in that they seem not to comply with the rules outlined in the section "Method". This section states that we should use official national numbers if they exist. If national numbers are not available, we are supposed to use "projections for 2019 by the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs". As an example, in this recent edit you removed the official 1.1.2018 number from the Central Statistical Bureau of Kuwait and replaced it with data from citypopulation.de. That is not in accordance with the "Method" described.
Looking more closely at your edit history, it seems that you are frequently changing sources back and forth for a number of countries, so it is difficult to follow the changes, but the impression is that you often disregard the rules outlined in "Method". In this edit you replace national numbers with IMF data for Nigeria, replace UN data with populationpyramid.net data for Congo and replace UN data with IMF data for Eritrea, all in contradiction of "Method". If and when I have time, I will start cleaning up, but it would be very nice if you could help with that.
On another note, it would also be most helpful if you could start communicating with other editors. Wikipedia is a community project where editors are supposed to cooperate in order to improve the encyclopaedia. You have already been advised to start using edit summaries, see above and at WP:EDITSUMMARY. In addition, you should consider using the talk page for discussion before you make major changes to the article. Finally, I will ask you to stop marking almost all your edits as "Minor", since they are mostly not minor edits. Please read about when to mark and when not to mark your edits as minor here: WP:MINOR. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits yesterday were fine! Thank you for quick response. Y
As for today's edits:
Somalia: No worldometers, please. And it is certainly not an "official" popclock. N Please revert.
Libya: Numbers from US Census Bureau are not "official" for Libya. N Please revert.
Western Sahara Y FINE!
Oman Y FINE!
But none of these edits are minor.N Please read WP:MINOR and stop your disruptive minor marking.
You have been told many times to use edit summary. N Please read WP:EDITSUMMARY and start making summaries.
You've been warned numerous times about removing data templates from List of countries and dependencies by population, the most recent being in #February 2019 and yet you have done it again today.[8] From your edit summary it is clear that you can understand English so the only conclusion that can be drawn from your persistent ignorance of warnings about this is that you are deliberately vandalising the article. Further vandalism will likely result in reports to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to List of countries and dependencies by population 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.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
I see that you have been asked many times to do this. Please use an explanatory edit summary for all future edits. Thank you.Begoon05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits which I see you make that do not adhere to the above points, or that swap, alter or remove sources or data templates in a way contrary to the established norms at articles which have repeatedly been explained to you will simply be reverted. You have ignored other editors, edited disruptively, and wasted people's precious time for far too long, and it stops now. --Begoon08:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of countries and dependencies by population, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Since you've obviously forgotten about the last time that you were warnedAussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of countries and dependencies by population. Your edit does not look constructive. At the least, please explain which constituent countries of Belgium are now being shown in detail and why this change is made from breaking out the Netherlands to Belgium. The change looks so suspect as to appear to be vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at List of countries and dependencies by population 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AussieLegend (✉) 03:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After just coming off a block for this very thing, you should have learned not to remove data templates. You've been warned numerous times for this and have never complied with these warnings.[9][10] It's at this stage that I would support an indefinite block. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add that, unless you can demonstrate a complete change of approach to your editing in a convincing way, I'll be forced to add my support for an indefinite block to that of AussieLegend. You have ignored other editors' advice, requests and pleadings, continued to edit disruptively, and wasted a large amount of a large number of other editors' precious time for far too long, and it needs to stop. If you're not going to stop the disruption voluntarily then I'll need to support you being prevented from continuing. You have had countless opportunities to change course, and have never done so in any even vaguely consistent fashion.
I really don't understand why you won't co-operate, you obviously enjoy updating this article, and it seems a shame that you may end up completely unable to, through long-term blocking - but you've obviously understood what you are being asked to do in order to edit according to our policies and norms, because, when pushed, you have made a very few compliant edits. So I'm left with the conclusion that it can only be because you don't want to comply - and in a collaborative editing environment such as wikipedia that is just not fair or acceptable. --Begoon06:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked NJA to immediately lift the English Wikipedia ban. I will follow the Wikipedia policy in the future. Don't violate the Wikipedia policy. I need to edit the entry or upload the information according to the real situation on the English Wikipedia. --AKS47188323:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I think that might be the first time I ever saw you communicate with anyone. I have some questions for you:
Why did you ignore every attempt anyone ever made to communicate with you about this?
Why did you stubbornly continue marking edits as minor when asked not to (it's actually slightly more effort to do that)?
Why did you refuse to use descriptive edit summaries when several experienced editors pleaded with you to use them?
Why, on the very few occasions where you did use edit summaries, seemingly only because you had been "forced to" because your edits were, by this stage, otherwise being reverted, were they often deceptive ones describing only part of your edit (but not the part(s) against consensus)?
Why did you continually remove data templates and change sources contrary to the article "method", when you knew that was against consensus?
What are your feelings about the large amounts of precious time of various editors which you have wasted with this behaviour?
Why should we suppose things will be any different if you are unblocked?
I asked NJA to lift the permanent ban because I did not make destructive behavior when I edited the entry or uploaded the material in English Wikipedia. --AKS47188302:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I was blocked by NJA in English Wikipedia was because I repeatedly regressed the entries in List of countries and dependencies by population (especially the change of the Netherlands to Belgium), but most people think that the Netherlands has been gradually isolated since 2010. I think that it is my fault to destroy the Wikipedia guidelines and quickly remove my blockade in English Wikipedia. --AKS47188303:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is verging on incomprehensible. Do you actually understand the questions which I asked you above, and the subsequent one by C.Fred? It looks increasingly like one of the main barriers we're experiencing is that you do not understand English well enough to communicate with us effectively. Is that the case? --Begoon04:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked by NJA on the English Wikipedia and there was no expiration date. I asked NJA to immediately lift my blockade on English Wikipedia and ensure that I will never contribute to the destructive behavior of the encyclopedia, because I have to English Wikipedia editorial entry. --AKS47188306:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the questions that you are being asked, repeatedly posting the same thing and not bothering to ask to be unblocked properly is not going to get you unblocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. I are still able to view pages, but i are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from my has been blocked (disabled) by NJA for the following reason(s):Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia continued disruptive behaviour immediately following recent block. This block has been set to expire: no expiry set. NJA immediately lifted the ban on my English Wikipedia. I will edit the terms in accordance with Wikipedia's policies in the future. --AKS47188306:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. I are still able to view pages, but i are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from my has been blocked (disabled) by NJA for the following reason(s):Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia continued disruptive behaviour immediately following recent block. This block has been set to expire: no expiry set. NJA immediately lifted the ban on my English Wikipedia. I will edit the terms in accordance with Wikipedia's policies in the future. --AKS47188310:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that you're just going to continue to ignore everything that is posted here instead of responding so I'll just comment:
I asked NJA to immediately lift the English Wikipedia ban - No, you did not.
NJA immediately lifted the ban on my English Wikipedia. - No, he did not.
Immediately lift my ban on English Wikipedia, I no longer violate Wikipedia policy, I have to edit the entry in English Wikipedia. Immediately lift my permanent ban on English Wikipedia. --AKS47188312:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to be able to edit English Wikipedia ever again, you need to show that you 1) have understood why you have been blocked, and 2) can convince the community that you will edit according to policies if and when the block is lifted. In order to appeal the block, you have to read and make sure you understand Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.
In trying to read what you have written in this thread, I get a feeling that part of the problem is that your grasp of the English language may be a bit too limited to express yourself clearly, please see Wikipedia:Competence is required. May I suggest that you concentrate on editing in the Wiki of your own language for a period, while at the same time working on developing your English language skills. After a year or two you could come back here and try to appeal for a lifting of the block. --T*U (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not used it for a year or two, my English language ability has been very good, and I have lifted my permanent ban on English Wikipedia within the fastest day! --AKS47188313:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are proving my point: within the fastest day is not an English expression at all (even if I might guess your meaning). According to English grammar, I have lifted my permanent ban states that the ban has been lifted (which is not true) and even that you have lifted it yourself (which is not even possible). My guess is that you mean to express your wish that the ban should be lifted quickly, but that is not what you say. --T*U (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors have wasted a great deal of time dealing with this user who refuses to "get it". I would suggest revoking his/her access to this talk page. Regards, Aloha27 talk 13:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been permanently banned for two days, and the ban is lifted as soon as one or two days, because I no longer violate Wikipedia's policy. --AKS47188313:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deadline for my permanent ban on English Wikipedia is July 18, 2019. This will allow you to edit English Wikipedia normally. --AKS47188314:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to repeat my question from above: How was this a constructive edit? Please answer the question specifically and directly.
You need to explain why you made the edit that I have linked to above. If your response does not address that, then I (and probably many other administrators reading this exchange) will conclude that you either do not want to edit constructively or are unable to edit constructively—and that we should not unblock your account now or at any point in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this not a constructive editor because the population clock is not reliable. I have been permanently banned in English Wikipedia for three days. I have been updating the population of Oman in the List of countries and dependencies by population. --AKS47188302:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you say above: "my English language ability has been very good". I'm forced to doubt, at this point, from your responses on this page, that your English ability is sufficient to edit here collaboratively, and I certainly doubt that it's anywhere near as good as you appear to think it is yourself, but, in case I am wrong, please answer the following 2 questions just "yes" or "no":
Do you understand the questions which I asked you above?
Do you intend to attempt to answer any of them?
If we don't get much further with this, and C.Fred's question just above, then I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Aloha27 that removing talk page access would be the best option, to avoid any more editors (including you) wasting any more time and adding to the enormous amount of time already wasted dealing with this, here, and your long-term, ongoing disruptive editing. Thank you. --Begoon05:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Yes, because I changed the Netherlands to Belgium in the List of countries and dependencies by population. I was negligent. Although my English ability is very strong, I have to edit other entries in English Wikipedia. --AKS47188306:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What question is "I think it's Yes" an answer to? (edit conflict) I linked to the list of questions which I asked. Are you saying you understand them? If so, and I guess you must think you understand them because you think your English is "very strong" (quite the opposite is actually demonstrated here, imo, but you say that's what you think), are you going to to attempt to answer any of them? If not, why not? My questions were designed to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you understand why you have been blocked, and explain how you will avoid that behaviour if you are unblocked. So far you really haven't done any of that, and I think you really do need to.
The rest of your comment seems to be a response to C.Fred saying that you made a mistake with Netherlands to Belgium? --Begoon06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
my English ability is very strong - As a native English speaker I am confident in saying no, your "English ability" is not strong at all. In fact, it's only barely better than my "Chinese ability". 作为英语母语人士，我有信心拒绝，你的“英语能力”根本不强。事实上，它只比我的“中国能力”差一点。 --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was because of the list of countries and dependencies by population that the Netherlands was changed to Belgium, which led me to be permanently banned by NJA. I originally edited the entry in English Wikipedia. --AKS47188309:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I give up. You're ignoring everything anyone says because you're either not willing to be helped, or, much more likely, totally unable to understand the help and respond coherently. Either way there's nothing more I can do here. Good luck. --Begoon09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was because of the list of countries and dependencies by population that the Netherlands was changed to Belgium, - That was only one reason for your block and it does not explain why you changed The name of The Netherlands to Belgium. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately lift my permanent ban on English Wikipedia, because English Wikipedia is very important to me, especially Oman in the list of countries and dependencies by population. --AKS47188309:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately lift my permanent ban on English Wikipedia - No. I'm confident that no admin will accede to that sort of demand. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator named N.J.A. privately blocked my English Wikipedia, but I also want to edit the entries in English Wikipedia, especially the Oman of list of countries and dependencies by population, I decided to let N.J.A. lift my permanent ban. --AKS47188312:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where NJA has any interest in lifting your indefinite block. As AussieLegend said above, I don't think any other administrator is willing to lift your block.
To be frank, you have failed to demonstrate that you can work well with other editors. Wikipedia is collaborative, and you must communicate with other editors in the course of making edits. This conversation has proven to me that you are unable to do so. I endorse an indefinite block of your account. —C.Fred (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
![[11]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/smhn.gif){kind=link}