Contents

User talk:力停

@Code Pending: Apologies and thanks for the revert, I had not noticed the edit had already been reverted when I went and reverted the article on huggle, thanks for fixing my error! Flalf^Talk 07:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code Pending. I noticed that one or more of your recent User Talk warnings, namely AnonymousArtist1900's talk page, was a misuse of a multi-level template. With rare exceptions, multi-level warning templates should start with a level one template, and increase per offense until level four, at which point any subsequent vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV. Your warning template was a lower level than the previous warning, without an adequate reason for doing so. This can allow a vandal to continue to make disruptive edits. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on multi-level warning templates to make sure that your anti-vandalism efforts are the most effective. Thank you. Bass77_talkcontribs 01:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bass77: the {{uw-wrongsummary}} warning is a single-level warning. Code Pending (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Code Pending: Yes, that is true. However, I think you missed the point of my message. You gave a level three warning immediately prior, which means that you should follow up with a level four (final) warning, most likely {{uw-generic4}}, because the pattern of disruptive editing takes precedence over a single canned edit summary.

Don't worry about that, though, because in this case it isn't too big of a deal. You're a new editor, so I was just trying to make sure you knew about the policy for warning users. Sorry about the mistake. Have a good day. Bass77_talkcontribs 04:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cold at least read the talk page of the messy article about orders of magnitute, with numerous complaints about its shabby quality, before arrogantly reverting a well intended tagging for shabby quality, with text like "anonimous editor". So sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.84.11 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your talk page comments. They were so devoid of substance I reverted the maintenance tag additions. I am inclined to do so again. Code Pending (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not devoid of substance, and it is not just my comments. Most comments by other people complain about the poor quality. Your aggressive arrogant behavior will be reported, if you continue. Watch your behavior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.84.11 (talk)

You seem to have realized the problem with your initial tagging. There's no claim of "POV" whatsoever in your comment, but nobody can dispute that the article needs better sourcing. Code Pending (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Obvious...." as yourself

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You do good work! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find her bio notable? Wake me up when twenty twenty ends (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I don't care. Don't edit war and don't add nonsense to pages like JF. Code Pending (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Code Pending, this is an LTA - User:DeepNikita. Probably best to just report such accounts to AIV and avoid responding to them. aeschylus (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the table within the demographic stats to remove the estimated 2020 population, now that the official 2020 census has been released (this was already added to the page prior to my edit.) I apologize for not putting in a summary, but I hope you understand my reasoning for the edit. Thanks. KebBadErikSteveJobs (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user Fishmr has been making reverts on the page Roger E Billings. He has been making many changes, some of which cause layout issues. Yesterday he reverted your edit, as well as changes made by bots trying to clean up the site. Instead of simply fighting his reverts, I have tried to talk to him on his talk page. He has blanked it out and does not seem to be in good faith. I don't know what to do besides cleaning up after him. What would you suggest? Hoorah83 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to understand why my link additions are "unnecessary". Both links would be useful to a reader who wants to understand the ABC Conjecture and prefers an informal mathematician's explanation and demonstration and an opportunity to generate their own triples. It seems these links are in line with Wikipedia:Be bold but perhaps a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is needed? Regards. Rick21784 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick21784: there are quite a few other explanations already in the section, including at least one Youtube link. If you think that the new video is a better explanation than the existing ones, start a thread on the article talk page. Code Pending (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Code Pending: I'm cool with the revert now. After much thought, I don't think Wikipedia needs to be a Google repository. If additional information can be found by simple Googling, that is probably sufficient if it's for additional/ancillary information. Most initial info queries probably start with Google and there's no need for everything to end at Wikipedia. Rick21784 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力停, why did you "Removed uncited info." which was perfectly cited with references to Wikipedia and the original article? Is it a kind of racist political cleaning from references to the non-black authors? Man, if you don't read popular literature in English, you better leave the English Wikipedia! Try Chinese, or Japanese; looks like you use japanese 漢字.

Again and again, with a speed of an unedit in every 2 seconds. You are really an unedit troll!

That is called a Popular culture references, present in every significant article. The references are made to the official interviews and comprehensive explanation of use. Again, if you can not read it, English Wikipedia is not for you. If you can, you are welcome for constructive edits; not deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.234.195.113 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]