User talk:User10281129

January 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Suzerainty, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Please do not keep adding unreferenced material on to content that already has citation needed tags on them. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joseon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This notice does not mean that you have violated the three-revert rule, but to make you aware of the rule and the broader edit-warring policies. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from First Sino-Japanese War into Joseon. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting other editors are have "personal nationalism"

Please do not just accuse or asser that other editors are acting on personal Chinese nationalism, as you did in this edit summary. This may be considered a personal attack or aspersion. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time this has happened. Their unblock request back in August 2022 had the same accusations of Chinese nationalism. Regardless, their talk discussion and article edits seem like WP:Tendentious to me considering they are edit warring over the same material they tried to instate back in May 2022: [1] [2] [3] [4]. What's ironic is that to try to get around that edit war, they themselves made the same compromise I did by merging "independent state" with the tributary statement [5], while reverting the same compromise in this instance [6]. And they still got reverted:[7]. They did not engage in talk discussion in the initial edit war while trying to push through the same changes in the current edit war without any sign that consensus has changed. Nor has the current talk discussion been productive. Their engagement is filled with multiple continuous badly thought out half finished one liners before clicking the publish button. I would say this may be an issue of WP:COMPETENCE but they are able to make complete sentences that are overall understandable when it suits them so I assume this is in reaction to someone simply not agreeing with them. Qiushufang (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]