User talk:Honoredebalzac345

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Honoredebalzac345, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Drat8sub (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honoredebalzac345, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Honoredebalzac345! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - false accusation. I only reverted a change ONE TIME on that page - not repeatedly. Reverting a change ONCE does not amount to REPEATEDLY reverting it. ITs not even close to the 3RR rule. Please be careful about your accusations in the future. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually new here? Have you ever edited under another name? You appear to be awfully sure of yourself and policy for someone who is theoretically only days old. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Adrian Zenz

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adrian Zenz; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again - false accusation. REVERTING something ONCE does NOT amount to REPEATEDLY reverting it and engaging in Edit war.

Moreover, the discussions on talk page are mostly about Zenz's book, not criticisms of his work by Chinese government and Chinese state media.

Also - I always offer in my Edit summary to discuss on talk page, and also offer the other editor to revert my revert if they still disagree.

I only see a violation of policy if reverts are made REPEATEDLY, not just ONCE. ONCE is not even close to the 3RR rule.

I am now going to go ahead and create a talk section on the topic anyway. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rr is a bright line but even one revert can be edit warring. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Zenz is different because its a WP:BLP, please review the special standards for these sorts of pages. We can only use high quality reliable sources, which Chinese state media is not, on articles about living people. Also please answer the question you’ve now been asked twice, have you ever edited before you made this account? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does even a single revert amount to full-fledged edit warring? In that case, I will check Wikipedia policies and do accordingly.

And no - I have never edited Wikipedia before I created this account - except one small grammatical change I made on a page as an unregistered user few weeks ago. After that I decided to create an account. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Honoredebalzac345, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Programme for International Student Assessment have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't end

Look what I've just found out. I had thought that Adrian Zenz debacle was over, and I haven't even edited in such topics ever since, and yet now we've been accused of being socks of some other user. I don't know about your situation, but your name was mentioned and I was in the dark as to what was happening until recently as I wasn't even tagged. The way new users are being treated is just appalling. Telsho (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol yeah I saw that. They seem to be obsessed with new users - particularly those who fight back against their politicization of Wikipedia and abusive edits. It seems few of them are actually here to build an encyclopedia, but largely to push their political agenda on Wikipedia and hound new users. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention users being accused of being a part of some bigger organization. When people constantly makes accusations like that, it really makes you think what the truth really is, doesn't it? Telsho (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]