User talk:联合果君

Template:Unified Combatant Command of the United States Armed Forces
Please stop moving US Space Command from geographic to functional - sources are saying it is geographic. Garuda28 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * “USSPACECOM is a Geographic Combatant Command with a global Area of Responsibility defined as the area surrounding the earth at altitudes equal to or greater than 100 kilometers above mean (average) sea level.“ . Garuda28 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Head of state
Please stop trying to force your edit into Head of state. Bring your proposal to the talkpage there. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

May 2020
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fall of Constantinople, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mr.Sarcastic. I noticed that in this edit to Solid rocket booster, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr.Sarcastic： https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solid-propellant_rocket#Merger_proposal， The discussion is over and the entries are not merged——联合果君 (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that out. I'll revert my edit. You could have said this in the edit summaries. It would have helped to avoid such revert. Anyways. Thanks Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hi 联合果君! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at European Parliament that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

European Parliament
Would it be possible for you to expand on your comments about ethnic minorities and their representation as MEPs on the relevant talk page? I get the impression I haven't fully understood your arguments. For example, are you saying that the number of Black MEPs isn't disproportionately low, that it may be disproportionately low but not extreme enough to warrant comment, or that it should never be included no matter how disproportionately low it may be?

Eelworm (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I believe you can safely assume that the lack of responses is no longer because anyone's failing to understand your position or motivation. Eelworm (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:European Parliament, did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.

In particular, please see WP:BLUDGEON.

"Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every '!vote' or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'. They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome or feels they own the particular article or subject matter. While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior."

Transcendence (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)