User talk:Goggo2022

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of military special forces units. 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. - wolf 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

didn't realize i was edit warring with anyone. Goggo2022 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added note

Per WP:BRD you need to go to the talk page to discuss issues with your edit. I would suggest you self-revert for now until the matter is settled. - wolf 16:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

started new section on talk page. Goggo2022 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for your edit?

Hi there, Could you please add a source supporting the addition that you made to the Current Events Portal? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2022_March_21&diff=prev&oldid=1078565303 The Washington Post article linked there doesn't say anything about Ukrainian military vehicles being at the mall. Thanks, jfriedly Jfriedly (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's easier to just show you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfZpoVp4op4 Goggo2022 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The video does indeed appear to show a military vehicle parking in front of the building. The Sun also has a write-up that includes this text:

> The video was reportedly released by the Russian military itself in a bid to prove Ukrainian forces were using the mall to station their own missiles and justify the brutal attack.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/worldnews/18017568/eight-civilians-killed-russian-attack-on-shopping-centre/

User:The_Introvert_Next_To_You I can't comment on the veracity of the video, but I believe Goggo2022's edit was made in good faith and there's a source here. Jfriedly (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please don't flat-out delete sections from articles like you did with the NYPD without any explanation or discussion. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elon Musk. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There's a reason that comment is in the article. Ignoring it, and worse yet, removing the warning comment, is not constructive. You cannot arbitrarily overrule consensus. Meters (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time you have attempted to make this edit. Discuss this on the article's talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goggo2022, I see it's been a couple months since you've been given an edit warring warning. Please consider this a reminder about the policy. Could you please read or re-read WP:EW and consider alternatives to repeating your edit without developing consensus? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page United States Air Force has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits.

Added note

If you had bothered to explain the change the first time around, then the revert and follow up edit would not have been necessary. Please keep that in mind going forward. Thank you - wolf 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Point guard, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm OsFish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Secondary education in Japan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please do not edit pages erroneously. Please follow the policy on retaining established varieties of English. I can see you have been warned by other editors on this specific point. OsFish (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're assertion s flat out wrong in both cases. Japan uses football officially (see Football in Japan) making it the proper usage and the arab world demographics doesn't use CIA as a source. Goggo2022 (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, which is what the page is written in (and as people have tried to explain to you, the established variant stays Wikipedia per MOS:Retain), the word is soccer. This rule is to stop nationalistic campaigning across the encyclopedia. Regarding use in Japan, while in official situations *both* are used - there's the JFA, but there's also eg the All Japan High School Soccer Tournament), soccer is the standard word used in English, both in the media and in standard references used in schools eg this dictionary lists as translations soccer first, and football as a British variant. On the other hand, "football" still is typically understood in the first place to mean American football. This reflects the use of the words サッカー　(sakkaa) and フットボール　(futoboru) in Japanese. You can also look at the English language editions of major Japanese newspapers such as the Yomiuri Shimbun, the Mainichi, the Asahi (sample article here), and the English language Japan Times here which all use "soccer".

Regarding your other problematic edit on Demographics of the Arab world, you need to add sources. The reader has no guarantee that a Wikipedia editor didn't just make them up. As it is, your formally unsourced numbers do not agree with either of two widely recognised standard sources for this type of information (The World Bank and the CIA World Factbook). It is absolutely correct that another editor changes the article to make it adhere to the fundamental WP:Reliable sources policy. If you want those numbers in, add the sources for each of them. I'm not sure what you mean by "arab world demographics doesn't use CIA as a source" as the CIA World Factbook is the main source for most of the statistics in that article.

Finally, regarding "edit wars", it is standard practice, if your initial edit has been reverted, to take matters to the talkpage, and not try to force your way through. The status quo pre-edit should remain in the meantime. This is how most editors avoid formally crossing the threshold into WP:3RR. What you should have done is go to the talkpage and make your case for your edits to seek consensus from other editors on that page.

Editing against policy (in these cases, against MOS:Retain and especially against WP:RS) will only generate conflict for you on Wikipedia. Policy has developed to reduce conflict. (If you don't like the policy you are welcome to try to change the policy, but not to ignore it.) OsFish (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I've asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics#Sourcing for Total Fertility Rate on Demographics of the Arab world on how best to present statistics when there are multiple estimates for the same demographic stat. If I now understand what you were trying to do, it was to use other wikipedia pages as a source for your edits. I'm afraid that's not good practice, as Wikipedia, because it's user-generated, cannot consider itself a WP:reliable source according to its own sourcing rules. See WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for a longer explanation. You need to check and cite the reliable external sources those pages use.OsFish (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Average human height by country 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been warned about edit warring before. You have bene undone six times (I beleive), by several editors. Discuss your edits on the talk page per WP:BRD or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hangaku Gozen

Hello Goggo2022! I assume that you are confusing Hangaku Gozen with other figures, as the existence of Hangaku Gozen and her historical role in the Kennin Rebellion are supported by historical chronicles written close to her lifetime. In fact, her grave is even preserved in Fuefuki. Applodion (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, I see you've been updating the List of military special forces units, but when you add sources, you've been leaving them as bare urls. It would be appreciated if you could complete these refs per WP:CITE. I've done this for you after your most recent edits to Ukraine and Mexico, using the {{cite web}} template. (note: I swapped the Mexican Navy ref for another.) The five basic parameters of url, title, publisher, date & access-date are sufficient, but of course you can fill out more parameters if you so choose. If you could complete your refs when editing, it would improve the article and save time and effort for your fellow editors. Thanks - wolf 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]