User talk:Balisong5

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sexual slavery with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Coconut oil shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Balisong5 reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: ). Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Anti-Japanese sentiment and Sexual slavery

Thanks for contacting me. I'm sorry that my concerns were not clear about your edit to Anti-Japanese sentiment. It is original research, as are your subsequent arguments. You certainly know about proper sourcing and citations, so I'm wondering if this is related to your removed edits from Sexual slavery. Please just stick to the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond here, and WP:assume good faith while doing so? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be mindful of the assumption of good faith. Now you said that you reverted my edit because it was unsubstantiated by the citation but your position looking at it from an objective perspective is an exaggeration of the information within the source. After my lengthy reply I expected you to point out information within the article that validates your stance but all I'm left with is a reply that my edit was not supported by the citation. Can we have others weigh in on this? Because I firmly believe that my statements in the edit is a much better assessment of the citation in question than the position your supporting Balisong5

Thanks.

We should get others involved. Can we move this to the article talk page? There, could you please quote from the sources exactly what in them supports your preferred version? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 1 B

aNovember 2016 (UTC)

I will take you up on that. But on the same token i dont believe the burden should be left entirely up to me. I would also like you to quote from the sources that supports your position then we can compare. If push comes to shove and there cannot be an agreement maybe there should just be a deletion of either our positions on the matter. Balisong5

Please review WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE. Support your preferred content rather than making assumptions of others'. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant to make my point clearer by stating the obvious, that you have your own position by which you standby. That's all. And there's nothing wrong with that because I understand there will always be differing views on any subject matter. Balisong5

You don' know my position. I have none other than that we should follow our content policies (which I hope we both agree upon) and that better sources would help. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fair enough. But after having explained my side on the subject in the talk section just now I believe it's only reasonable to come to the conclusion that what was previously written(not saying it's you)prior to my edit does not hold merit in light of my explanation. Balisong5

January 2017

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of genocides by death toll, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Please note that the Thirty Years' War was predominantly religious, not 'genocidal' by nature. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]