User talk:XXzoonamiXX/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ukrainian Casualties of the September 11 attacks

Hello, I am from Ukraine. I know that among the victims is a citizen of Ukraine and I want to write an article about it in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. But I do not know about it. Could you give me information of who was a citizen of Ukraine among the dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOSFERATU (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I need to check. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Freedom Movement

Hi, and thank you for your good background edits on the run-up to the movement, and for the section headings and page layout. The earlier 20th century history is important and was lacking on the page, and the page layout was lacking a bit. I did remove the Watts section (the riots had no effect on this movement, which was already well underway before Watts). Nice work, thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot, but the reason why I added the Watts riots because there's a subsection on the side that cited the Watts riots as a reason and that it was the main reason why Martin Luther King Jr. went to Chicago to lead the freedom movement. Prior to 1965, many Americans in the North and West assumed that the Civil Rights Movement was purely a Southern problem. The Watts riots shattered that perception and the Civil Rights Movement shouldn't be limited to just the South and that there were bigger problems on the outside that the civil rights activists had to contend with. So I'm gonna have to add that back in for perspective, just without the headline subsection. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I added some accuracy wording to your new edits. Watts is sourced as one reason to help convince King to join James Bevel, who was taking the movement to Chicago with or without King (Bevel, as SCLC's Director of Direct Action, was the SCLC administrator deciding where the next location was, except for St. Petersburg and Memphis, the former he ignored, the latter he opposed but King was going there with or without him, so Bevel joined him but continued to advise against it). You seem to have a good grasp of much of the data, and hopefully will continue to improve CRM pages. Good meeting you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

I've just reverted your changes to this article again. You are editing referenced material pretty carelessly - for instance, changing "Allied combat personnel" (which covers soldiers, sailors and airmen) to "Allied troops" (which can cover only soldiers). From memory, the source which said that " This attitude was reinforced by the indoctrination of young people" refered to school students, etc, yet for no reason you changed this to "recruits" which is totally different. Other edits were just as careless. This is getting close to vandalism, and please stop it. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a simple comment, but your definition of "troops" is wrong. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines troops as, among other things, "armed forces." That would include sailors and airmen. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Since when Allied "troops" cover just "soldiers" by your OWN definition? I think it's careless if you're too much focus on the details so much it makes no different and doesn't affect anything. You also haven't defined what "young people" is, assuming they were actual recruits rather than students, since we're talking about WWII, so how the readers are suppose to know if they were talking about students or recruits? All I did is change around some words and some sentences to make it word since there are unnecessary information that can be throughout explained by further sentences and statements, yet you have the nerve to throw it away words like "carelessly" or "vandalism" when I haven't done remotely anything near that. If I were, I would have delete whole sections and remove information that are actually relevant. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm SharabSalam. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, USS Cole bombing, 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. SharabSalam (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit WW2 casualties

Please provide a source for your edit. During Japan's Aleutian Islands Campaign in Alaska in June 1942, a U.S. civilian was killed during the bombing of Dutch Harbor. The Japanese invaded the island of Attu, killing a white U.S. civilian and interned 45 Alaska Native Aleuts in Japan, in which 19 died during the rest of the war --Woogie10w (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I don't see where you've received a warning about edit warring. Why do you believe I might receive one when you haven't? Konli17 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

rewording quoted text

I'm a bit taken aback that something so basic needs to be explained to a user who has been here six years and has 12,000 article edits, but unless you have strong evidence someone is being misquoted, you should never re-phrase quoted text as you did here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, the reason I rewrote that statement because it's what I thought that was in the actual book, but I found out it was actually wrong that I had to correct it easily. The wrong statement came within my mind of what I thought it was, but didn't turn out to be, since I'm the one that put that statement in. It will never happen again. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"It will never happen again" is the only part of this reply that makes any sense at all, but ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Northern States in general.png

Hi! I saw your upload File:Northern States in general.png and think it's a great addition to the Northern United States article. However, it appears to be missing the states of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, which are mentioned in the article. I was just wondering if you would mind adding them to the image? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 08:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qwirkle (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

My edit was not vandalism. Don't call my edits vandalism if they are not. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You, by definition, are. You never cite a single legitimate source that dissuades the notion that the USS Cole wasn't a terrorist attack. You did this simply based on feelings because I already cite several sources linking articles proving it was indeed a terrorist attack based on the motivations by several of the perpetrators involved, yet you persuasively continue to removing that word associating despite lacking a legitimate source in doing so, which goes against the policy of WP: Reliable Sources. Do that again one more time or you will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about this here but would you accept a RfC? Do you think that would be a good solution?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You disobeyed the "Rfc" comment the very moment you decided to go back the way it was originally before as demonstrated by your recent edits of the same topic we went over previously. Also, for a guy who constantly remove the word "terrorist" on every USS Cole related-article without adding any evidence or legitimate source (which I did) other than reverting all over and over again, then have the nerve to ask for Rfc (despite it happened a month ago and nothing came through), you're very hard to be taken seriously at this point. Also, the talk page you talked about hasn't changed since last month, and no, you lied. There is NO universal consensus the USS Cole attack was not a terrorist attack (you went and insert that you did), only that disagreements were made and that a legitimate author would come by to see (which hasn't happened unfortunately), which destroys your argument. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that this is a very old conversation, but please allow me to speak on the matter nonetheless. You seem to keep insisting on changes and rule interpretations with justifications that can be struck down with fifteen minutes of research. Zoonami has shown better editing etiquette than you have. Meanwhile, you were whitewashing information about terrorist attacks? Seriously? That all sounds like bias. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

November 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Major film studio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please get your sources right before you assume. The WB site here even said "Warner Bros. Pictures". King Shadeed November 10, 2019 at 9:46 p.m. EST

You didn't put that link out there in the article which is the cause for putting back to where it belongs. I clearly stated there's no such thing as "Warner Bros. Pictures", which is why I revert it. I also do not understand why you insist on keeping "Walt Disney Studios division unit" next to "The Walt Disney Company" rather than actually the Walt Disney Studios media conglomerate which is owned by TWD and is the only one located in Burbank, just because you personally don't like the fact both companies are called the same thing when there's two differen articles in that. It's not that hard for readers and yourself to confuse. If I do not expect a reply to you within a day, then I will revert back the Disney ones I made when you offer no legitimate link/argument to that. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures is a major studio division of The Walt Disney Studios. The Walt Disney Studios is an entertainment division of The Walt Disney Company. And you're saying "I clearly stated there's no such thing as "Warner Bros. Pictures"" when they've been using that name since 1923. Goes to show you that you don't use common sense. So don't call yourself arguing with me and don't call yourself trying to force a response back from me. King Shadeed November 11, 2019 at 7:20 p.m. EST

Walt Disney Studios Burbank should be next to TWC, not Walt Disney Studios division because it assumes readers that it's in fact owned directly by TWC, when it's clearly WDS Burbank that owns it. Just like Universal Pictures is directly a wholly-owned subsidiary of NBCUniversal, not Comcast, which owns the latter that operates Universal Pictures. Second, Walt Disney Pictures only represents Pixar, WDA, and kid-friendly movies, not Marvel or Star Wars, when we're clearly talking about BO numbers in general. There's nothing to suggest linking both terms is redundancy when both links are clearly different despite the same name. "Warner Bros." is what everyone around the world knows, not Warner Bros. Pictures, and in terms of Wikipedia, "Warner Bros. Pictures" is already formed into the Warner Bros. article because it's repetitive and is basically the same company anyway. Third, it's not my fault you didn't put out a proper link in the first place that I have to remove it several times, then have the nerve to accuse me of edit-warring. You're not getting anyway if you keep putting out rude arguments against other users instead of arguing in good faith.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Another thing, I use common sense. The major studios are: Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, and Warner Bros. Pictures. News sources doesn't say Walt Disney Studios as a major (unless you can prove plenty). When Touchstone Pictures was formed in the mid-80s, Walt Disney Pictures was elevated to a major studio by taking MGM's place when MGM downgraded itself to a mini-major. King Shadeed November 11, 2019 at 10:07 p.m. EST

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Walt_Disney_Studios_(division)#Production Common sense would be putting Walt Disney Studios Burbank next to TWC, not Walt Disney Studios Division. Walt Disney Studios is also listed as a major film studio, and since it distributes a number of movies ranging from Walt Disney Pictures to Touchstone Pictures, it's much more fitting be better there. You admitted yourself that you didn't want both "Walt Disney Studios" name there because it's redundant, where there's clearly a difference in both operations despite having the same name, which is not a good reason for removal. It needs to cover a wide range of topics, not just the one that distributes a specific topic. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemme ask you something: did you use common sense to look up the name "Warner Bros. Pictures" online and source it before I shared the link? King Shadeed November 12, 2019 at 10:51 p.m. EST

How it is common sense to use the name "Warner Bros. Pictures" and bluelink that to the actual article name "Warner Bros." which talks about being an entertainment company in general (that operates from film to television to video games) and even that article's sidebar list "Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc" as a former name? Even so, it's common knowledge everyone refers the Warner Bros. Studios as "Warner Bros." (and not Warner Bros. Pictures), just like everyone refers the "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation" as "20th Century Fox" because it's not just easier for people to say that, but for the editors and users as well. Which makes your comment rather arrogant to assume everyone should know and call by the name you're constantly referring that no one even supports or care about, so please don't talk to me about "common sense". Want to avoid confusion, then create the "Warner Bros. Pictures" as a separate article, which doubt it will happen due to people opposing the proposal. Please don't put out a former name that is misleading to the actual article name/purpose, which you continue insisting on doing. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my goodness... you just don't get it, do you? Warner Bros. Pictures is the film division of "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." do you get that? King Shadeed November 12, 2019 at 7:23 p.m. EST

Please stop getting smart with me. Why do you name "Warner Bros. Pictures" and bluelink it to the article of the same name minus the word "pictures" where it talks about being an entertainment company in general and not just the film division? The main article you bluelinked even list "Warner Bros." as a major film studio, not specifically "Warner Bros. Pictures". Also, it's very misleading to the readers, who would have to navigate specifically for the film division after clicking on the link. People also use name "Warner Bros." in various video game and broadway Wiki articles. However, there is a section on the Warner Bros. article that is called "Company units" which is a good start for you creating subsections of Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc division. Maybe start right there before people can accuse you of misleading. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You're telling me to stop getting smart with you but you haven't answered my question. And me using "Warner Bros.|Warner Bros. Pictures" is accurate here. That's also saying that people can't use the Wikilink "Paramount" by using "Paramount Pictures|Paramount" (Paramount) when people have been using that for a long time. Is there a rule or anything where we can't use that method? You're also talking about that I'm misleading users when I'm not. That's your assumptions. Don't assume period. And another thing. You also said that I accused you for edit warring? Um. Look up and tell me what happened to you back in June and let me know. King Shadeed November 15, 2019 at 2:17 p.m. EST

Just because I change a few little questionable things you made doesn't what I did is against WP:AD, which puts your "edit warring" excuse in question. It's just that your point of view doesn't fit what I'm seeing here so I made some changes and you threw a misfit over that one word "Pictures" blue-linked to an article that doesn't fit that article's actual content. The fact is you're using "Warner Bros. Pictures" to link to "Warner Bros." article about an entertainment company that makes movies and TVs and video games, which is very severely misleading to the readers, so how is that what you did is supposed to be accurate? Also, "Paramount Pictures" on Wikipedia and as an article's title and purpose exists, whereas "Warner Bros. Pictures" as common knowledge and as an article's title and purpose does not, so it's like comparing Apples and Oranges. This is why such changes had to be made to reflect the actual article's purposes. Another thing, you haven't bothered to answer my question why you can't make sections without the Warner Bros. article's section I blue-linked to you. Answered that, please and stop wasting my time. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done with this. Okay? You haven't answered my simple question. Be mindful that if you keep edit warring, you're going to get blocked again. So. It's either you don't get it or you get it and you just don't care. I'm done with this. The Major film studio article is gonna have Warner Bros. Pictures in the wiki link for Warner Bros./AT&T section because it's talking about the motion picture division at that motion picture article. Again. I'm done with you and this.King Shadeed November 17, 2019 at 4:00 a.m. EST

"You haven't answered my simple question." If I haven't answered your "simple question", which I did, then your argument is either obtuse or is simply another recycled argument we already went over. Also, it's hardly edit-warring when it's just a few edits and you keep blocking to changes I made of what I consider is very questionable. You also still haven't properly explained why you think "Warner Bros. Pictures" should be linked to the article that talks about the entertainment company in general, nor a question of why you can't create sections within the article to differentiate. That's like naming Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and blue-linked that to the "Warner Bros." article. The difference is the former of the article itself exists while "Warner Bros. Pictures" does not. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing etiquette

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your reconsidering your edit at 1968 Washington, D.C. riots after I reverted it. I saw your thanking me for the revert.

Not a whole lot of Wikipedia editors take kindly to their edits being reverted, which is understandable to a degree. Nice to see some impartiality for a change. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marine deployment to L.A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding false material

I've noticed that you've got a long running history of adding claims to cited material which isn't supported by the existing references. This edit is an example, where you claimed that the source referred to the number of deaths as those who were "instantly" killed. It does no such thing, with the source's explanation of the table stating that it refers to "The number of total casualties". You made a similar edit to a FA [1] here, with the sources given also not supporting your assertion that the casualties are only those killed in the initial bomb blast. At best, this is very sloppy editing. At worst, it's a deliberate falsification. There are several similar complaints from myself and others above. I will block you from editing I see this continue - please take time to check your sources, and get the details right. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem here pal? False material? According to your standards? The only one complaining here is you and I like to comment your standards is a bit more complex and overreaching at its best especially to others users who are not familiar with your problem. What false material? It's literally adding the general acceptance and circumstances that lead to the estimated death toll, and some sentences I add don't really bother to clarify the confusion created by the previous sentence. It's like no one can edit the A-bombings statement except yourself. If you don't like it, you can point out to me in certain discussions where they set the standards. At worst, you rush to conclusions and rashly accuse me as if it's deliberate rather than trying to talk out what kind of thing you're prioritizing here. That to me is rude and crude on your part. Try to have a discussion with me instead of rashly accuse me of something I'm not, and judging by your comments throughout history, you don't really seem like the type of guy no one should look you up for. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a repeat of your response to the similar complaints above. Please get the details right with your editing. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your claim, not mine. Plus, You didn't bother to answer my argument. But then again, you probably don't and instead of proving my arguments wrong, you resorted to attack me instead and point out without evidence that others might collaborate with your claims. Basically, trying to cover up the fact you don't have a specific answer to my response. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is to be honest. You were adding material to the articles which wasn't supported by the sources. Please stop doing this, as you have been asked to do repeatedly above. If you can find sourced figures (preferably sourced to secondary sources) on the number of people killed instantly by the atomic bombings it would be a useful addition to the articles. Your replies in this thread are basically the same as your replies to the threads above, in which you deny that there's a problem and try to turn the tables on the person asking you to knock it off. Please consider this to be the final warning before you are blocked for this, and please do take the time to get your edits right. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact you point out my other threads above (which really have nothing to do with this topic at all) you have no argument and have nothing to do what we say here. Also, the sources I did point out were taken from the main A-bombings article you guys put out, but you remove them off as I deliberately put out false sources. You also didn't bother to answer my main argument as well, which makes it worse. IMO, you're coming off as obtuse and cruel than it is. Point out to me the sources extensively how they are completely wrong and the like. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The "threads above" (and the older ones you have deleted) show that a great many people have challenged your work. I know I have been leery of your work for the past six years. If I see your name come up on my watchlist I know I have fixing and reverting ahead of me. One main problem is that you find one or two sources and base your edits on those, without respect to existing references already in the article. Another big problem is that you add stuff which is peripheral or off topic. A third problem is that you create your own new interpretation from combining sources, violating WP:SYNTH. An older problem is that you have posted copyright violations and too-close paraphrasing. Finally, you don't acknowledge your shortcomings, and you appear unwilling to fix them. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You know nothing about the threads of people I have conflict with over the past years. Most people I have conflict because they have wrong/biased interpretations of what their information they think they should be, and the fact you mention it is considered a character assassination on me rather and since you're not going to bother investigating the contexts I have over the past years anyways, it is none of your business. What "no original research"? The two links I have put out came directly from the this section of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article you guys added and have no problem keeping them in. What information in a certain article is acceptable to add and what is not depending how really/less important is it? To you guys and not of that of Wikipedia Admins? Because it seems to me, you're the only one showing up constantly and arguing with me a ton. Earlier, I'm simply trying to fix the confusing sentence that directly contradicts the other, and you rashly gave me a warning simply for one edit on an article makes me think you're trying to intimidate others who wants to protect their point of view. The only people that does give warnings constantly conflict with constantly is you and the other guy, then you invent "arguments" and twist it in order to justify your point of view and nothing else as you have done in the past to others. Only you and nothing else so please don't speak for everyone. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Re: Invasion of Quebec (1775)

I have reviewed your report at WP:ANEW regarding the situation at Invasion of Quebec (1775).

You are just as culpable for the edit war as the other editor is. I note that the page is in the status quo ante situation: it's back like it was before your first, bold change. You made a bold change, and it was reverted; it's now time to discuss the situation. Please make sure you have reached consensus at the article's talk page (Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)) before trying to readd the material.

If you were to add the material without discussion, it would be a clear case of edit warring and grounds for at least a partial block from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And what if he doesn't respond for a couple of days or weeks whether in his talk page or the main article? It makes me feel like you're literally giving him a reason to edit away my arguments forever if he doesn't respond to my comments like at all. I know you want me to compromise and all, but all he seems to care is about editing out that doesn't fit in his point of view and won't bother to care if his reverts stays intact and not response for days of weeks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Then ask for a third opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem is no one really knows this as much as I do and you literally handed the victory over to AllSaintsNext who hasn't responded to my comments so far (no offense, but that's how I see it). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble locating many sources that can be readily verified to support your position. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I just cited sources like I told you in the other board, but AllSaintsNext however has a different way of doing and I did cite sources to him and ask him how they violated my NPOV in anyway. It should note he was blocked a month earlier for making the same claim here in another article (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_disasters&action=history) even though he was actually vandalizing under the guise of doing it on the assumption that certain users violated NPOV. He doesn't really care about my arguments. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is about your conduct. You need to make a compelling case for the source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

AllSaintsNext's conduct does affect how he wants to rewrite of what he really thinks and other articles as well and I did make a compelling case for some of my sources in his talk page (he flat out refused to consider them multiple times). Even if I did compel him with the sources provided, he wouldn't flat out care what he thinks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet another reason to discuss article content at the article talk page, so it brings in a wider range of editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 185.69.144.212 (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Battle of Baltimore

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Civilian and "400 Things Cops Know"

Regarding this revert, the statements cited to "400 things cops know" failed verification; see Talk:Civilian/Archive 1#400_Things_Cops_Know. As far as I can tell, nothing in that source supports the cited text at all (and it looks like someone else previously pointed out that issue, but was ignored.) Please respond there with a specific quote showing what part of the cited text supports the contested material before restoring it again. I'll also point out that, by my count, at least four people have objected to your proposed lead paragraph, while only you seem to support it, and the objections have been ongoing for its entire time in the article, so it has never had consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite actual proof that supports your statements. None of that you cited in your talk page has any valuable proof whatsoever. The sentences are made to demonstrate between the definition of a civilian in a peacetime world and a wartime context, you have cited none of that in spite of your analyzing. It's very inappropriate to blanket remove entire definitions then refit them into your own arguments when properly sourced. The current text is a compromise especially to those who still think outdated that police and firemen are civilians in a peacetime world too, when that's not really the case. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Per WP:ONUS and WP:V, the onus is on you to verify statements that you put in an article (and this text has plainly been disputed ever since you added it, given the number of people who objected to it.) I have looked over 400 Things Cops Know and it does not, as far as I can tell, validate the sentences you are trying to cite to it; now that that has been challenged, you have to demonstrate, somehow, that it does. I went to the lengths of actually finding and reading through the source you cited, but ultimately you have to be able to explain how, precisely, it verifies the claims you are making. Note, as I said on talk, that the problematic text here isn't the dictionary definition (which I left in) but the two other sentences you added after it - nothing about "criminals are not civilians" or "This use [of the term civilian] distinguishes from persons whose duties involve risking their lives to protect the public at large from hazardous situations such as terrorism, riots, conflagrations, and wars" appears in the text you're trying to cite. You need to either explain how it cites those statements, or find another source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Take it to the official article talk page please, I can't have every argument on the same topic in two pages. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Violent criminals

Back in May 2015, with this edit you added an uncited sentence about violent criminals to the lead section of Violent crime. I want to understand where your source material is found because focusing up front on the criminals, and not the crime, discounts the victims' experience and potentially introduces bias to the article. Please feel free to join the discussion about Violent criminals. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't remember. Sorry. Do what you want. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients in non-combat incidents

See Talk. While I applaud the research, (although it may open a can of worms), I feel that the name change did not take into account the conflict with the main Medal of Honor article. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

It looks like you are aware of the edit-warring conventions, so I won't post a generic message here. Please quit it. I'm trying to comply with the clear consensus position developed on the talk page - to which you are a contributor, and on that point may I refer you to WP:INDENT? - where your views are not gaining wide traction, to put it mildly. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

None of that doesn't mean overruling the facts there are informal definitions of how people view that way no matter how much you want to shut down. Please discuss that on the talk page because as much as you want to believe it, there isn't any clear consensus and agreement around the current article's writing despite widespread beliefs there is even though there's still disputable content of who's a civilian or not. Thank you. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reported you for what IMHO is edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:PBS (Result: ) — PBS (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not edit-warring when some other guy tried to revert theirs without any explanation. Seems weird for some reason you never applied this to Pete since he's engaged in edit-warring too. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"you never applied this to Pete since he's engaged in edit-warring too". So you admit that you were edit warring. The univolved administrator who looks over the incident can decide who else if anyone was also edit warring. — PBS (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

24 hours has passed and as a result, I'm not edit-warring. I'm using this logic for the sake of not applying the same standards to the other user I'm arguing with. We'll see how the admin boards go anyways. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a "bright line", not a definition. You are edit-warring, and you have been doing this on this article for a long time. Yes, I've been heavy on the WP:BRD but as well as R I'm happy to D. Your contributions in discussion do not address the reasons of policy and process for not accepting your preferred wording. Not least being WP:CONSENSUS; when you are the only editor out of several working on the article who wants things done a ceertain way, perhaps edit-warring is not an effective strategy, hmmmm? --Pete (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring#User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:PBS (Result: Warned)

The result of the edit warring noticeboard discussion initiated by me:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:PBS (Result: Warned)

  Now archived in 3RRArchive442 -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Is posted in that section (diff):

Result: User:XXzoonamiXX is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

—PBS (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Last chance. You have not obtained consensus for your recent reverts. Please self-revert or I'll hand this over to admin enforcement. --Pete (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Buddy, there's no consensus around this type of wording except your proposal to add refs down to the body article. You're the one winging over the issue for no reason, and your current dictionary source doesn't support what you say. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Very well. Brace yourself for a notification on a WP:3RRN discussion in a few minutes time. --Pete (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You wrote on talk:Civilian "The admin you linked has nothing to do with the current informal definition and has more to do with guideline violations than information edits" (diff). It seems that you have not understood the guidence that User:EdJohnston gave you "They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page." (diff). See WP:3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You could of raised the issue of style repetition etc on the talk page and gained a consensus for the alterations you wish to make. I suggest you self-revert immediately, and keep within the restrictions place upon you. -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Edit warring at civilian, continued after a prior complaint

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Archive created

I've created your talk archive page as requested by archiving all discussions earlier than this year. If you wish to add further to the archive, just cut from this talk page and paste in the archive above the {{abottom}} template. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your thread has been archived

Hi XXzoonamiXX! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Advice how to archive a talk page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Inexpiable. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Capital punishment by the United States federal government seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Calling my edits "less neutral" is priceless when you're trying to add a political point in an article that is actually previously neutral and doesn't speak out any favors to a political party. Your edit is biased and is trying to portray a politician in a bad light (and your edits are clear admittance of it). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. The complete opposite is true. Inexpiable (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Your edit to Provisional Irish Republican Army has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Final warning: Copyright violation at Bobby Sands

Your edit to Bobby Sands has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irish Canadians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Troubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Paramilitary finances in the Troubles

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Paramilitary finances in the Troubles, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of common misconceptions

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of common misconceptions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

War crimes

Hi, I've reverted a few of your recent edits, and I see that I'm not the only one to find them problematic. Please review our policies on WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK before adding essay-like glosses on the definition of war crimes to articles like Italian war crimes and German war crimes and/or attempting to enforce your view of what does or doesn't count as a war crime without first seeking consensus. As CaptainEek has pointed out to you, in each of these instances we should be following what reliable sources say. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Buddy, war crimes are based on existing international law and inteprreation based upon that existing law. I realize I was wrong in Afghanistan ones, but not in other areas where it's pretty clear they were not legally proven war crimes. Also, it's pretty ironic to say you're attemting to enforce your view because my edits in several articles are based on specific IHL and several sources backing up and you don't even bother to read the sources I cited. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

How do you know what I bothered to read? Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI I've started a discussion related to these edits at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica. Feel free to state your case there. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh and leaving aside the problems I'm having with you, I have a hard time believing why in debate about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you had to remove Saburō Sakai's quote (which had nothing to do with a war crime, but his perspective on things) or that the Recreation and Amusement Association was somehow forced prostitution when it was clearly legalized, to begin with. In what world do you think legalized prostitution after consent from proper authorities is a war crime? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to raise a concern with you calling Pearl Harbor a war crime back in 2014. Your edit on the Japanese war crimes page is the top result on google, and your statement lies somewhere between highly questionable, and outright false. The United States was aiding China in the Sino-Japanese war, and the Pearl Harbor attack was and assault on a military base. Japan committed plenty of war crimes during world war 2, you don't have to make up new ones. Janarablomb (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Then by all means, you lack knowledge of existing international law. The reason why Pearl Harbor was a war crime because the Hague Convention on Opening of Hostilies said "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Japan did not do that. It's not a make up new one, it was already codified in the Hague Conventions on Opening of Hostilites decades prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Aiding Japan by supplies was not comparable to directly sending troops, which meant that the U.S. was officially still neutral, just like Iran aiding Russia in the current Ukraine war doesn't mean it was a legitimate grounds for NATO to attack it because Iran is still officially neutral by virtue of not sending troops directly. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I would trust you to interpret that information, given your first sentence in the response is nonsensical. Janarablomb (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to post on Talk:Japanese_war_crimes and discuss your case there then. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)