User talk:Kidiawipekidiawipe

Welcome!

Hello, Kidiawipekidiawipe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Universal suffrage did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! 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. --Asqueladd (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Your recent editing history 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. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I need you to stop adding your editorials about things like sales figures. It is original research to add anything more than what sources state. The things too keep adding create WP:SYNTH issues. Please stop. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Your recent editing history 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.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tartessos is a moot archaeological culture, more associated these days to the interaction of the Phoenician civilization with local cultures than to "a mythical kingdom". In addition, its relation with Spain's State formation is one of the most outlandish points of (Spanish) nationalist myth. You can go to the talk page to find consensus about your edits. You can also explain there what Germany has do with anything (?), and overall why stuffing with unnecessary (and moot) bullet points the infobox is an improvement rather than the opposite.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Associating Tartessos with the state formation of Spain is by definition something to do with Spanish nationalism. I still can't grasp the point you are bringing with Germany (let alone its relation with Tartessos, Hispania, et al.). I am once again suggesting you to make your points clear in the talk page and seek consensus.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? It is the earliest and biggest iberian entity. Iberian traditions are still present today. I can't understand how it can't be included in the formation. But I'll remove it, and see if the other editors are ok with the rest of the expanded formation. Now that I took in your biggest concern, can you let the edit be until someone else raises a point? About Germany (and Tunisia, etc), what I'm talking about is that their wikis have the exact same formation structure I'm trying to implement in the Spain page, a expanded one with more factual info Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the earliest and biggest iberian entity. The what? Iberian traditions are still present today. Excuse me? What are you talking about? How this rambling has anything to do a core connection to Spain's State formation? what I'm talking about is that their wikis have the exact same formation structure What? The structure is the same (ad hoc bulleted points) after your edit than it was before. You've just jumped the shark going way backwards in time with dubious extra points.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I haven't "reached" an "agreement" with you in any way whatsoever. I've suggested you to seek further feedback in the talk page already three times because this format (a tête-à-tête between you and me) is going nowhere. I suggest to make your case there clearer so I (and other editors) can answer back. I can barely accede to your arguments (I suspect the reciprocal is also true).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yeah. This "a tête-à-tête" isn't going nowhere Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for your message. First of all, you assume, for some reason, that I hadn’t seen the other message. When I detected your edit-warring, I visited both user talk pages to check if any consensus had been reached. I had, in fact, intended to issue you with a WP:3RR but, seeing that you had already received three warnings for the same reason, decided against it, as the evidence points to you being fully aware of what that means.

In response to your Point 1, your statement "unless the editor says otherwise, we ended in agreement and the edit was ok..." does not justify restoring the content. People are not at Wikipedia 24/7 so are not always able to reply in a timely manner. You simply decided consensus had been reached, despite the user having specifically suggested, at least twice, you seek consensus at the article talk page.

In response to your Point 2, might I suggest, in passing, that an explanatory note to the effect that you were copy-pasting a previous message from another page would be in order. However, you once again insist that it refers to “an additional reply on my part which settled the issue.” It may have settled the matter as far as you were concerned, but there is still no indication that there is a consensus. In response to your Point 3, my warnings were not “out of line” as you were engaged in an edit war. As I pointed out above, you are fully aware of the consequences of such action. My other warning, regarding you simply inventing what the reference states still holds.

All of the above is, of course, a moot point, as the information you originally added to the Spain page regarding the formation of the country, and were edit-warring over, was unsourced and, at best, original research (WP:OR). Why start with the Tartessos when referring to the formation of the country now known as Spain? Why not add the earliest known hominin residents in Western Europe, you know, the ones that settled in the Atapuerca Mountains? So, back to Square 1. Am interested in seeing how you intend to sek consensus on the article talk page.--Technopat (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Tartessos part already in the last edit, and that version almost stayed more than 24 hours until you reverted it, so that rule wouldn't be in effect if it weren't for pure chance.

Tartessos was an state, an iberian state, it was the first de facto, de iure n proper formation of the country, n was the only one who involved the original peoples of the territory. That's why.

But even knowing this I removed it to let the edit be and see if any other editor had an issue with the rest of the edit. Seeing it wasnt't auto-undoed like with the other editor kind of proved my point, I don't understand, why not letting a good faith edit be for, you know, a couple of days just to see if a version 2 (with the feedback of the other editor) raised any statements from other people. If a good faith edit doesn't go through *just* because one editor I don't think that is very fair or beneficial for the article. As far as I know, 99% of wikipedia could be fine with the edit except one person, so at that point it is't finding a consensus, it's the contrary. I said I was open to discussing it in the Spain page, but trying this first I think is more than reasonable.

About the sources, I'm stating verifiable facts that are not only a google search away, but ones that link *directly* to other wikipedia pages that corroborate the thing at hand, what is more verifiable than that? I don't understand how that is original research. The formation section I was editing *did not* have any sources, the current one that is on right now, so I think requiring the new one to have them is a stretch when it's verifiable information and it links to the appropriate wikipedia pages. The current formation section is basically random dates that do not refect the formation of Spain but the formation of "national catholicism", the Spain of dictator Franco, which is why I want to contextualize and expand the section with actual dates from the country's formation, which mainly means adding the dynasties that ruled it instead of removing anything that isn't (national) catholic like now...

[ original message: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1145060517 ] Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have anything to reply? Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please start a discussion on WT:VG about you adding Game Awards images to infoboxes. That's not something we normally do in any medium, let alone video games. Please stop until you have a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of adding it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i dont have time for that, sadly. there should be a system to vote on innovations like this one and let the majority decide, the value of the proposal would decide the outcome instead of someone having to put hours, days or weeks on convincing people 1 to 1... that way it could be decided in hours without much input from the person that makes the proposal. i would have added Oscars n the like in the same visual vein if i was free to do so, but alas... Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not how Wikipedia works. If someone contests your edits and you don't have time to hold a discussion and build a consensus, you need to drop it. Even if you did, it would be unlikely to get support. We're an encyclopedia, not some sort of awards database. Music, films, television shows - none of them have image based tallies of awards in their infoboxes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]