User talk:Arab editor 9212

Welcome!

Hello, Arab editor 9212, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

At Wikipedia, editing disagreements are best resolved through talkpage discussion, and not edit-warring. Please consider the points I have made on the talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Workers' Party of Korea shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
Your edits have been questioned by multiple editors; I have pointed that blanket reverting is not the solution, but you continue to do so. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help please

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

the Mahamadou Issoufou article , Political uprising of 2011 section , seems to be some problem , my infobox that i created seems to being overitted sources over it Arab editor 9212 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please clarify your request? I don't quite understand what's wrong here. benzband (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes , in the article i just mentioned i created a infobox about the uprising under Nigerien political uprising of 2011 section , the infobox has the References section written all over it Arab editor 9212 (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to work properly on windows explorer 9 , but not for chrome browsers , so i dont really know , is it olny me or does every chrome user has the same problem Arab editor 9212 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i see what you mean. But i don't know if an infobox is appropriate for a mere section of the article. With sufficient sources however you could create a separate article for the failed coup d'état and link to it.

I have found a temporary solution to the problem with this edit, while i look in to various possibilities. Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with including a infobox in a article section , see History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi for example that article includes a section infobox about coup of 1969 Arab editor 9212 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I suppose it seemed odd because of the small size… anyway the infobox is in the references section for the moment, so that wont do either. BTW i had nothing to do with removing it, it just seemed odd that's all :-) benzband (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"so that wont do either" ?? am confused what does that suppose to mean , if you have a better suggestion i will be more than welcome it Arab editor 9212 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, problem resolved. It's just that at the time the infobox was overlapping greatly on the references, but since it's been fixed. benzband (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox was removed as an event lacking notability. It's been restored, but does not meet the guidelines for inclusion and may be removed appropriately by others. Note the differences between the Gaddafi coup and the Issoufou coup. The results were clearly vast, while little information is actually available to support the content in the infobox itself. Note also that the Gaddafi article needs extensive cleanup. See OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamadou Issoufou

I've gone ahead and again cleaned up the edits to the infobox on the above referenced article. Rather than adding ? (question marks) to fields, we simply leave the fields blank when information is unavailable. (I have also removed the flag icons from the infobox.) The sections have also been condensed. For further information please review the Manual of Style, along with guidelines for body sections. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your version does not make any sense , why remove flag icons ? and as i said if you remove this please remove the coup itself from the List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010 or your edit doesn't really work Arab editor 9212 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup has been made in accordance with community policies and guidelines. It is essential that you refrain from using other articles, poorly edited as rationale for your edits. Please review the guidelines as linked above. (Flag icons are deprecated in infoboxen.) As for the "list", I have no idea to what you are referring. You will need to be more specific. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010 i mean if its not notable enough for a mere section (and think article) than it should NOT be mentioned in such a notable list that i said Arab editor 9212 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of a coup in a list is not an appropriate rationale to create an independent section in an article. Have you had a chance to review the applicable guidelines yet (as linked above)? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - you dont seem to understand what am saying do you ?! i said: i mean if its not notable enough for a mere section (and think article) than it should NOT be mentioned in such a notable list , in a nutshell : remove it from the list !!!!!!
        Actually, it's really not necessary to remove it from the list. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Good , than please refrain from editing the Mahamadou Issoufou article becuse as i said it does not really work Arab editor 9212 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        One does not correlate to the other. Again, have you had a chance to review the guidelines yet? Edits in conflict with the guidelines don't work. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        you do not seem to know so much , i really thought a well established editor like yourself would know some basic things, and of course it correlates , did you not read my arguments and what guidelines do you refer to ? your non-specific claims about "guidelines" doesent make any sense , and please avoid to use wikipedia essays when reffering to guidelines Arab editor 9212 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually haven't referenced any essays, but rather guidelines, to which you can find a link at the top of this section. As a new editor, it would be to your benefit to learn the process, policies and guidelines from seasoned editors offering their time and assistance. No one is your enemy here. I am more than happy to help. Again, have you had a chance to review the guidelines? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Why don't you create infoboxes for events, rather than adding them to the article about whoever was president when the event transpired? Surely you would agree that a coup plot that makes international headlines is worth a separate article. So why not make those articles and move the infoboxes there? Everyking (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]