User talk:ErickTheMerrick

July 2024

Hello, I'm Yue. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Popular Movement of the Revolution, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yue🌙 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in infoboxes

Please see WP:OL and WP:SOB. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh uh (I personally don't see the problem with it, there are other pages with the details I added that aren't too overlinked in the infoboxes) WildRaptor777 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a site guideline and you're not free to unilaterally decide it shouldn't matter, even if other pages are also wrong. If you keep enforcing this across pages, that would be pretty disruptive. Remsense ‥ 论 08:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just found it visually bothersome that many pages don't link to things like unitary state and federal state when it's listed on the page WildRaptor777 (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Remsense ‥ 论 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Arab Republic

Stop reverting my edits for the Libyan Arab Republic. Your edits make the pages way too oversimplified and broad, they make the pages worse WildRaptor777 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking to me: no, actually. It's hardly an issue unique to you, but you do not understand what infoboxes are designed to communicate. They are not meant to be complicated or detailed. There is an entire article you can write, so stop fixating on stuffing as much detail as possible into the infobox until it becomes totally useless to readers. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. — Remsense ‥ 论 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't too much and it is not totally useless to readers. It clearly states the form of government in a comprehensive way. It's really not that much text, nobody is going to get overwhelmed reading it. Plus you keep removing the anthem and langauges too. Those are there for most other country's wiki pages so I don't get why they shouldn't be for this one in particular. WildRaptor777 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I also just realized I made this comment on my own page lol WildRaptor777 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fascist Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary. 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) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Belgium 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Userbox name

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Userbox name, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to ErickTheMerrick

Please take another look at MOS:SOB. Cheers! Remsense ‥ 论 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't apply or say anything about what might be wrong my edit ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the linked page says, it's generally not acceptable to create a "sea of blue" by having links abut each other, because they appear as one link and generally deemphasize the most important material that should be linked for readers. Per our guidance on overlinking that I also linked, people generally know what a "monarchy" and "constitution" are, so I would likely only link "theocracy". Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone would specifically know what a constitutional monarchy is. I think it’s important to add these so people know. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would perhaps link semi-constitutional and theocratic at a maximum. The guideline exists for good reason. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits like this one: common sense no, requires discussion yes, and if you're not willing to discuss these edits you should not be making them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could have phrased it better, but it’s an edit that follows the rules, I checked the rules and it doesn't fit into the realm of over linking. Maybe adding unitary state could possibly be over linking but no it something like parliamentary system. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you place links next to each other such that they appear as a single link, as in [[Federalism|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]] to appear as Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, that falls under MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello ErickTheMerrick! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Userboxes, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2024 (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:ErickTheMerrick reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hasmonean dynasty. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]