The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Burmese sentiment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Burmese sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Triangle. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Khmer sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preah Vihear. 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.
Hello, ZaDoraemonzu7. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Thailand and the Shan State, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Thanks for uploading File:Latin America and the Caribbean.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 16 Word Guideline, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please cite articles for verification. Only verifiable contents are acceptable at Wikipedia. Unreferenced materials are likely to be deleted.Hitro talk14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just wondering if you are planning to expand Public opinion brigades? I added a source which may save it from immediate deletion by other patrollers. But it really needs more. Don't be shy about adding sources as bare URLs in the references section, if you have to. This will help the article to stay in place and to be improved. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-Vietnamese wars until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. IEsuredI (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
one of the issues here is you creating largely uncited articles. but perhaps a bigger issues is your lack of response. it is not in the sprirt of Wikipedia to ignore others. I am giving you a chance to respond. as a piece of advice I'd ask you to refrain from creating poorly sourced articles. do you agree? LibStar (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you really need to stop inserting large amounts of uncited text. also creating articles and then walking away and doing no further edits. thanks. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IEsuredI (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Boris Yeltsin into American interference in the 1996 Russian elections. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from The Doraemons. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Marine Corps Yumi, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 16:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! LibStar (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Large article on a war needs more footnotes and sources.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
The article is about relationships between the two states. It has nothing to do with the people who lives in them or their origins. I'm assuming you are also the IP I reverted for the same reason. Doug Wellertalk10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to use edit summaries and to respond on this page, your talk page, to editors
In a collaborative project such as Wikipedia communication is vital. You've been asked to use edit summaries but have ignored the request. You rarely communicate with other editors and never on this page. You really need to do this. Doug Wellertalk10:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ZaDoraemonzu7. You have new messages at Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment. Message added 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Torreón massacre into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Wellertalk16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that User:Diannaa has warned you before about this and you ignored her. And that User:LibStar has told you that you need to use citations, yet you still fail to source your edits. I also see that you rarely use article talk pages and never replied to concerns expressed here. Collaboration is vital and because you are failing to work with other editors and ignoring warnings, continuing to add unsourced material (including statistics) I am considering blocking you or taking you to WP:ANI. Doug Wellertalk16:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Are you thinking that I have not listed enough sources? I have been working to study how to fix Wikipedia and so far I have done it more than you thought about dear NeilN. I
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! LibStar (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Continued failure to properly source or use edit summaries despite warnings.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
A page you started (Morocco–Saudi Arabia relations) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello ZaDoraemonzu7: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. PLease add your sources. External links means suggestions for further reading that may or may not have been used when writing the article - if they are your sources, please change the heading.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for failure to respond to requests to use edit summaries and no communication on your talk page other than the block appeal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
@NeilN: What do you think? This editor has responded before on this talk page so they must be reading it, but they still don't use edit summaries nor have they responded to my message here. Doug Wellertalk18:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I tend to indefinitely block in these types of situations. Which is kind of tough because the editor then has to explain why they're editing against community norms and why they're ignoring other editors while having to convince an admin their behavior will change instead of just changing their behavior. --NeilNtalk to me18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (India–Latvia relations) has been reviewed!
Dear NeilN, what have I done to? I don't understand what reason for the block? Which behavior?
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I don't get the reason why I have been blocked. Tell me why, and explain the whole rule for me. The in the next time I won't fix without any perpetration. Seriously I am not native in Wikipedia
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
There are very few people using it in my place, no one knows how to use. Neither I do. How can the block end when there will be no expire? I regret for not reading what's over, but give me another time, because I am not a native, totally I am not really prepared. Tell me the background of the "continuing same behavior that led to the previous block". Why?
Decline reason:
Please stop posting multiple unblock templates at the same time. Concentrate on one, explain your reasons and see what the reaction would be. Right now you just demonstrate that you are not competent to edit Wikipedia and must remain blocked.Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I seriously don't know which law, how does it rule, what type of rule. There is no clear what types of rules you want to use. I am totally not good on it because there are too little people in our nation use Wikipedia, they don't understand or get with it. And then suddenly I was banned without any reasons to explain. There is no clear what behavior. I can't even understand and this is not a good way. What type of behavior? What rule? Any censorship, monitoring agenda? In our place, censorship is still commons and people can't get free medias, meanwhile too little things are provided for us any basis. Tell me why? I accept that the ban may not be overturned, but please give me 3 years to see and understand. Then I will be more careful. I want to understand, just once, and don't use harsh words, tell me at least a basic of law. Give me 3 years, I will read. I don't beg, I need the reality. In the future, I will follow the order.
Decline reason:
You say that you don't understand the reasons for the block, and ask us to explain. This page contains nine messages asking you to use edit summaries, the first one dating from December of the year before last. There are twenty one messages mentioning the need for sources. Judging from the way you write in English, it seems very likely that the problem is that you don't understand English well enough to understand those messages. It might be possible with some effort to explain the problems to you in ways which you would understand, but if your level of English is such that you can't understand what you have been told in those 30 messages then it is highly unlikely that you will be able to understand further messages well enough to be part of the English Wikipedia community. Some of the text you have posted into articles has also been written in English which is quite incoherent, and unblocking you to continue in the same way would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hagennos (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodia–Poland relations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Kpalion(talk)16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burmese people in China until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, I'm Dr.K.. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anti-Turkism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to South Korea–Turkey relations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Armenian Genocide recognition, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 08:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 16 Word Guideline, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please cite articles for verification. Only verifiable contents are acceptable at Wikipedia. Unreferenced materials are likely to be deleted. Hitro talk 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! LibStar (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sinophobia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zanhe (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
