User talk:My Favourite Account

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far and for these previous contributions made before you decided to create a new account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (82.30.110.20) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! – My Favourite Account (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Favourite Account, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi My Favourite Account! 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 Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ewe
Stew
Pie
Dick Hunt

For the benefit of other watchers whose infoboxes have been edited- MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

While it's not outside the purview of cleaning up articles, you have been rather zealously removing flags from infoboxes and I would just like to repeat this here for others affected to consider- MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. However, physical geographic articles... islands, mountains... etc. – should not."

The Manual of Style only goes on to say consensus is needed for the placement of infobox flags in articles which are in dispute or intersect both Where one article covers both human and physical geographic subjects. These cases are few and far between. Manhattan is the only example I can find at quick glance, even Brooklyn and Queens wouldn't be covered by this as they represent borough/county divisions, human geography. Others, like Montreal have separate articles like the Island of Montreal. Do you see what I'm saying here?--Simtropolitan (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Simtropolitan is correct, I am responsible for the zealous removal of flags for Country, State, or equivalent, and County, or equivalent, to all but a very select number of "settlement" articles and apologise to all of those affected.

My Favourite Account ^😊 17:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please fix your signature. As used in the section above this one, it has five consecutive apostrophes which have the effect of starting bold italics; but there is no corresponding markup to terminate that effect. You can fix this either by adding five more apostrophes elsewhere in your signature so that only a definite portion is in bold italics; or by removing the five that are already there. Also, you should sign on the same line as your post, not at the start of a new line: when used in colon-indented threads, the signature on a lew line causes accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule Warning

Again, despite admitting your recent edits contradict the MoS, you have continued reverting edits on Springfield, Massachusetts.

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. See BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Simtropolitan (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will never understand why I am sent the warning when mine was the first edit to be reverted. Surely "changing content back..." and "Undoing another editor's work..." is advice and warning that should be given to the first to revert, especially if they did not follow the primary advice, "... Instead of reverting, please use the talk page...", they are the instigators.

Or will it forever be one rule for those who dictate the content and one for those who try to remove bias, especially such an obvious bias in articles related to the U.S. Using this edit as a typical example, almost all articles relating to towns and cities everywhere but the U.S. have consistency and follow the rule as intended, while those in the U.S. each has its own self-chosen editor, or sheriff, who argues, 'nothing changes without a consensus' on his page, one of those editors "changing content back...", "Undoing another editor's work" but one who doesn't need to "... use the talk page...", because they have impunity regardless of which editor has most privileges. So, do what the fuck you like, Wiki is now just a punchline to a joke about lacking credibility.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"ChinA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ChinA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#ChinA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]