User talk:Ka24872482Akeakamai

March 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Samoa-Apia— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I am uncertain why you believe this edit was not constructive. The link was to the appropriate cathedral, and contained no other code. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ka24872482Akeakamai, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ka24872482Akeakamai! 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 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Fort-de-France–Saint-Pierre. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DrStrauss talk 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Avignon Cathedral, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons should generally not be used in infoboxes. McGeddon (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Not sure about diocese icons - you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. --McGeddon (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are back to adding flag icons to articles about religious buildings. Please stop unless and until you have gained a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons as suggested above. Edison (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You left a post on my talk page which belongs on the Manual of Style talk page. Please keep the discussion in one place.Edison (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human geography

Sorry, I'm not at all familiar with this subject. Probably better to raise it on the article talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Abby Wambach, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Avignon

added a link pointing to Notre Dame

Roman Catholic Diocese of Annecy

added a link pointing to St. Peter ad Vincula

Roman Catholic Diocese of Moulins

added a link pointing to Notre Dame

Roman Catholic Diocese of Nîmes

added a link pointing to Notre Dame

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing campaign on French diocese and church articles

Hello- Your campaign of mass changes to church and diocese articles should not have been undertaken without consulting other editors first. You are creating a lot of clean-up work for your fellow editors. Please consult with others before undertaking such campaigns. A good place to do so would be on the talk pages of Wikiproject pages related to the topic, for example: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France. Eric ^talk 18:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I see you have begun another seemingly unilateral editing campaign on the above-mentioned articles. Again, it would be best if you consulted other editors interested in these articles before you edit hundreds of them. Eric ^talk 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eric copying Ka24872482Akeakamai's reply from my talkpage to here):

Hi Eric

Many of my edits are with regards to grammar (e.g. over-usage of commas, adding periods where they are accidentally left out, etc.) or rephrasing poorly stated sentences or linking words to articles (national monument [in French articles] to the wiki article "Monument historique" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_historique) or giving a more accurate name to cathedrals that fulfill the French translation than the current English name as per the original French wikipages for these cathedrals (without this addition the French translation is left ambiguously translating nothing from the English because the English translation is not on the page). Regarding changes made to language options (e.g. "(Latin: ; [native language]: )"), many wiki articles already have these options, specifically in this layout.

Regarding my past usage of flags, I am still waiting any type of explanatory response on the human geography talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography, "Question regarding human geography"), posted all the way back in March, or the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_15), posted again in early March, in order to build a consensus as to how flag usage would be inappropriate, considering the fact that church buildings and church dioceses are of human construct in/on a geographical location (be it in an area, as is the case with dioceses, or on a specific geographical point, as is the case with cathedrals), and that:

"[h]uman geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes.

The specific question in my post in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_15, just like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography, invites anyone to help build a consensus on the current facts by explaining how human geography does not include religious construction [either dioceses or churches]:

"Wouldn't religious buildings (mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, etc.) be considered part of human geography since they aren't naturally occurring formation? Wikipedia's articles on "Human geography" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_geography, "Building" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building, and "Cultural geography" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_geography seem to not touch the topic, though these links regarding AP Human Geography (https://quizlet.com/2120072/ap-human-geography-cultural-geography-flash-cards/ [which specifically mentions religious buildings (see "Christian religious buildings", "Hindu religious buildings", "Buddhist", "Islamic religious buildings", and "Judaic")] and https://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/geography-and-environment/spotlight-on-geography/human-geography-and-physical-geography certainly [which touches on religion in general (see "Cultural Geography")]) seem to concur that religion/religious buildings are part of human geography." "Flag icons for religious dioceses and religious buildings", but sadly I have got no explanatory responses.

Numerous other language versions of Wikipedia (e.g. French, Spanish) allow the usage of flags in infoboxes in nearly all religious Wikipedia articles.

Perhaps the best example of legitimate edits being labelled "disruptive" comes from adding an American flag under "National Team" to the infobox of the wiki article for Abby Wambach. Despite "the guidelines set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes, which clearly state: "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes", which would make my edit productive, not disruptive, User:Mattythewhite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattythewhite) insisted that this edit was "disruptive". When asked:

"How can an edit/editor can't be declared disruptive ... if he/she and his/her edit is in line with Wiki guidelines that are specifically set out in black and white?." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_35

no response was given, which continues to the present day.

I can't see how legitimate edits like this, whether done for just this wiki page or an infinite amount more, need a consensus, as per your and others' advice, simply because there seems to be some type of disagreement, which, in fact, is completely due to a lack of knowledge of the explicit Manual of Style guidelines, which could not be clearer. I am concerned that the Manual of Style/Icons might be deliberately not followed by these users.

Despite all of these minor edits (objective grammar changes, addition of flags in infoboxes where appropriate) perhaps seeming like a lot, they amount to a minor amount of change of the article as a whole. I am not making major changes like changing or adding whole paragraphs, creating infoboxes, templates, or new subsections, etc.. How is it really necessary to consult editors regarding minor grammar or small rephrases, even if done to numerous articles? Are there any Wikipedia project pages showing why such incremental [and, in the case of grammar, objective] constructive changes done to many articles would need consultation when these edits are in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons, or, in the case of French cathedrals, the spirit of the law (i.e. that the French translation to the title of a cathedral that does not have the English words from which to translate on the page would show a lack of information provided and, if left alone, would make no sense)? I understand the necessity to reach a consensus on major constructive changes to an article, but I am perplexed as to why such a consensus is needed for such minor constructive changes.

Numerous editors have tried to slow down a simple uniformization of poorly presented info [e.g. French translations to no English words; no clear presentation of translations (e.g. (Lat.Dioecesis), with no link to the wiki article for the language of "Latin"), etc.] without any reference to their claims, only to have me to continuously explain the evidence for the edit and ask with what they specifically disagree/their point of view, only for them to never respond in any substantive factual manner, if at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors.

Why is that when I am trying to seek a consensus, as per your and others' advice, with those who disagree with the edits, I ask specific, constructive questions both to the person(s) who disagree (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_35) and the community at large (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_geography and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons), citing that the edits are in line with the Manual of Style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons), only to have them not answer in any substantive, factual manner, if at all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors, but yet I am still told that these edits are disruptive somehow, one now must assume?

Such "failure to cooperat[e]" seems to be the epitome of "a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors.

--Ka24872482Akeakamai (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping to the topic of my original post: Your changes to the church articles might well be improvements, and might well be applauded by all. My suggestion, back in March and now, is that you consider running it by the community of people who work on those articles, as a courtesy if nothing else, that you intend to make mass changes. Eric ^talk 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eric

I spoke in depth citing much information because there has been so many nonsubstantive, unfactual criticisms over time with little to no evidence as to why there are these criticisms, to which questions have been continuously unaddressed, which has led to a snowballing of questions overtime.

I laid out the substantive, factual argument for reasons why I have made the edits that I have made both recently and over a long period of time, since all of them are related to the articles that you cited at hand, so that you and others will clearly be able to see the explanations as to why I made the edits and be able to comment appropriately.

“Flags" was explained in detail in "Regarding my past usage of flags,…" and "Perhaps the best example of legitimate edits being labelled "disruptive"…" in my previous post. In the example given, I expressed disbelief in how “legitimate edits like this, whether done for just this wiki page or an infinite amount more, need a consensus, as per your and others' advice, simply because there seems to be some type of disagreement, which, in fact, is completely due to a lack of knowledge of the explicit Manual of Style guidelines, which could not be clearer.”

My question regarding your latest post is this: Can you explain why the minor edits I am making, even to numerous pages, requires a consensus, even as a courtesy? Because quite frankly I cannot see how basic grammar [e.g. capitalizing "d" in the proper noun form of the name of a diocese (e.g. "diocese of Digne" becoming "Diocese of Digne", over-usage of commas, adding periods where they are accidentally left out, etc.)] or adding the English words that would be necessary for the already existent French translation or flags in infoboxes for human geography (which is done in complete accordance with the definition of "human geography" by AP Human Geography, which "seem[s] to concur that religion/religious buildings are part of human geography (https://quizlet.com/2120072/ap-human-geography-cultural-geography-flash-cards/ [which specifically mentions religious buildings (see "Christian religious buildings", "Hindu religious buildings", "Buddhist", "Islamic religious buildings", and "Judaic")] and https://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/geography-and-environment/spotlight-on-geography/human-geography-and-physical-geography certainly [which touches on religion in general (see "Cultural Geography")])" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_15 and the Manual of Style for Flags in Infoboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes, as well as in accordance with most other language versions of Wikipedia [e.g. French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.]) would even need a courtesy [which would just seem excessive to ask about such basic things]/would offend anyone who truly seeks to improve the presentation of this information [information which can vary very much from page to page that I often navigate], even if these minor changes are made to numerous articles, considering that my edits were done in good faith, are according to facts and the procedure for Wikipedia, and because there is so much evidence as to why those changes should be made.

My question is this because my concern is this: That every small change will have to go through a cumbersome process of proposing ideas/questions that willfully get no responses (which I have already have proof of being through, numerous times), thereby stymieing any conversation on the topic so as to favor the side of those who disagree and don't want anything to change, an action which still makes no argument for their position and thus would logically be in "bad faith", as Wikipedia rightfully asserts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors, for it only looks to shut down a conversation by illogical means. I seek not to make major changes (e.g. changing or adding whole paragraphs, creating infoboxes, templates, or new subsections, etc.). That has not been my goal, and that still is not my goal, and even if it became my goal, I would definitely consult others for a consensus.

I believe that most people would know that such minor changes doesn't deserve the level of scrutiny that you are proposing [instead rightfully reserving such scrutiny to make major changes (e.g. changing or adding whole paragraphs, creating infoboxes, templates, or new subsections, etc.)] or else little could be accomplished here on Wikipedia if such a case was the status quo or if such precedent was to be set.

--Ka24872482Akeakamai (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing things against MOS:JAPAN

You've made a number of edits removing the {{nihongo}} template and changing the kanji in articles to incorrect ones. Please stop now. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Hindustan

You are required to familiarize yourself with the subject before editing the article. Your edits altered the intro which in turn contradicted reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Please do not repeat these mistakes again.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ka24872482Akeakamai. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]