User talk:Donkey Hot-day

Welcome!
Hello, Barely made one, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not even sure exactly who or what I'm talking to, but if you want leave the genres misleading for the sake of an "unreliable (but frequently used) source", fine. But there're plenty more articles I've seen with flat-out unrelated or dead sources that've been kept for years without mention.Barely made one (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Human sexual activity, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". ''Changing "normal" to "common" is not a minor edit. Particularly when done because of its perceived implications. '' Jtrrs0 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * lmao 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Talkback
Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on William Shakespeare. 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.  General Ization Talk  19:34, 6 October 2018 (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.
 * Late reply, didn’t notice this until now, but you seem to have a loose definition of ‘edit war’. If you cared to notice the history, I did not do any reverts, just small re-edits of the same topic, in accordance to WP:Attribute POV. I wouldn’t have been bold if the sources listed were findable online. They clearly weren’t, and I also found sources like these. The wording of ‘by many’ is hardly a disruptive change either, and it’d have been a lot more constructive if you provided links to relevant discussions or the listed sources rather than pseudo-authority in the edit summary. So thanks for the concern, but I’m pretty safe from being blocked for edit-warring. Barely made one (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to From Dusk till Dawn, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice way to disregard good faith & misinterpret me there. I cited an actual guideline that has been referenced before by other users like Erik, & if you care to at least partly verify the genres, you can check all the articles' references & see how many mention action/horror compared to vampire/crime (but I'm sure you have 'better things to do', right?). Accusing me of 'disruptive' bias here & implying I have a history of it seems to fall under propriety allegations if I recall. Barely made one (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your User Page quote
Hi. Regarding your User page quote "Been seeing a few doucheheads lately whitewashing their talk pages of every dispute & criticism...meh, pretentious & pathetic." This behavior is widely done by some of the most disruptive editors on Wikipedia to conceal their disruptive practices... In this way, when administrators investigate the players in a dispute, it is only the honest editors that do not conceal their behaviors that will have the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise... Wikipedia is largely governed by bullydom and its enforcement, and its survival depends on its concealment... Unfortunately, the same rules of human behavior that skew the outside world, also extend to Wikipedia... Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, some of it was clear to me from a few encounters with other editors, although I fortunately have not had to deal with any serious disputes of late. Well, thanks for the post. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Xinjiang re-education camps; 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. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:46, 1 January 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.
 * Well, I'd be amused if you could procure the authority to block me from editing. The conflict is quite simple, and I'm willing to compromise plenty. The only question is if you're willing...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack
Hello, I made an ANI-notice for User:Horse Eye Jack. You can find it here. Your input would be appreciated. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been rather busy lately (and am trying not to make too many enemies on the site). I suppose I can put in a mild viewpoint later if there is no consensus. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DS Alerts

 * --Jorm (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Restoring removed content
Why did you add this back? There's no proof of relation between him receiving the award and his previous racist garbage, for all we know he made 100 other popular skits in the same year. "The next year, Jesper Rönndahl, the host of the skit, was honoured by Swedish newspaper Kvällsposten as "Scanian of the Year"."


 * It's pretty clear he enjoys a significant amount of popularity among Swedes due in part to his anti-Chinese stance, if you watch his videos and go to the Swedish sites. His wiki article also suggests it's one of the most notable things about him. I suppose I could look up Swedish sources that confirm this, but I don't exactly have the time atm...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "due in part to his anti-Chinese stance" which is WP:SYN Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you have a soft spot for Sweden, be my guest. But I'm sure many Chinese would find it relevant if he was voted by news readers to receive an award after such an international controversy. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why the unprovoked personal attack? I'm just trying to keep the quality of the article high. Whatever then smartass. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, if you found that to be a "personal attack", then you haven't spent much time in controversial articles. You find yourself a beacon of civility here? -_- Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spitting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive cite tagging
This is almost an year late but I'm bringing this up now because I just noticed it. In Special:Diff/1025927889, you tagged a citation with Template:Failed verification and gave the reason that "Info on Siasat & its founder is not found in the citation's JSTOR link." I have removed it now as the citation directly verifies the lines it is cited for and your reason is completely inaccurate. This is disruptive cite tagging, please do not do this and carefully read through citations before tagging them.

The lines the JSTOR link was cited for read, "The founder, Abid Ali Khan was a former member of the Progressive Writers' Association and remained as the editors of the newspaper. He was reportedly associated with leftists causes and had Soviet sympathies, the paper as such had described itself as being apolitical but infused with a progressive spirit." Quoting from the citation, Abid Ali Khan, on the other hand came from the Progressive Writer's association, of which he was the secretary from 1943-47. He belonged to a strand of Urdu writing and writers associated with leftist causes and Soviet sympathies. "After the advent of Siasat", a company brochure declared, "he kept himself aloof from active politics, infused the progressive spirit ... through his paper." Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link from your Diff is here: https://jstor.org/stable/4405219. Do explain where this preview with limited access even mentions Siasat? If the source supports it then find a better link that shows everything per WP:FULLCITE rather than accuse someone of disruptive editing. Your removal of the tag and justifications for it seem more disruptive to me. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That link is a preview for those who aren't logged in on JSTOR. Your accessibility problems do not make something fail verifiability and tagging a citation with a failed verification template because you have not seen it is indeed disruptive, read WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's not even a paywalled source, the lines I quoted above is present on p. 633 which you can easily check if you register or go through Wikipedia library.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, JSTOR access is easy for those who are affiliated with academic institutions or have paid for the article or the site's subscription. And I can 'easily check' through Wikipedia library which requires users to have at least 500 edits, six (6) months of activity, and 10+ edits in the last month and may still reject my request for access. Indeed, sounds like a very easily accessible source for normal visitors to Wikipedia. At least traditionally paywalled news outlets can still often be accessed with archive links & such. And you still have the nerve to say it's 'not even a paywalled source'...heh, got anything better to do than troll someone's talk page? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
Hello, I'm Pabsoluterince. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I suppose, although I don't see my edit being particularly 'misleading' compared to others. 'Copyedit' was just referring to addition of the link to 'anti-Russian sentiment' supported by the listed sources & also attribution for the NBC piece which was updated as not 100% undisputed as shown by my Eurasianet source. My edit summary is usually more elaborate, but I didn't think I'd have the time with the edit rate on that article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's just important because people can often simply skip less substantial edits (for example copyedits). A copy edit is correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout, IMO adding in a new sentence doesn't fall under ce. I totally understand though, not saying you did anything wrong. Just helpful for the future. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Republic.ru, 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. Thank you. Renat 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC) -- Renat 15:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, please do not accuse someone of breaking the rules when it is clear you simply don't like the source or text. The source added here describes him down at the bottom as having founded Slon.ru and being a member of the Bloomberg News team based in Berlin. It is in line with the policy of WP:PARAPHRASE & as for reliable sources, Bloomberg is more established than many of the ones cited in the article including Gazeta.ru & Lenta.ru (the latter of which is currently on WP:RSP's spam blacklist). Not to mention other sources cited which don't even have their own article, like snob.ru, polit.ru, fontanka.ru etc. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The adjective “solid”
Hi, I’ll not revert your edit [] but please consider where another adjective may communicate the balance of sources better - there is a brief discussion here: Talk:China_Eastern_Airlines_Flight_5735. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nupur Sharma (politician). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2022 (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.

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Spratly-Islands-Outpost.png
Thank you for uploading File:Spratly-Islands-Outpost.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move
An editor has requested for Guancha.cn to be moved to Guancha. Since you had some involvement with Guancha.cn, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
—  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

gaza war edit
Hey, why did you remove all the access-dates and archive urls?  nableezy  - 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nableezy Yeah again, that was an accident where my phone failed to load the complete article. Sorry. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at 2023 Israel–Hamas war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''What in the world was this edit? It looks like you grabbed an entirely old version of the article and pushed it through, deleting the intervening edits.  Veggies (talk'') 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Veggies That was an accident. I wanted to revert that back but I’m not used to editing on a mobile phone with slow connection. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Please pay attention not to undo other editors changes while editing Wikipedia please! Thank you. Ecrusized (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland does not have a terror group list that deviates from a ban list
This article explaions why I reverted your recent edit. I know it's in German, but feel free to use google translate or a page translate app. To summarize: Switzerland does not have a terror group list, financial transactions and aid to any group can only be banned if they are banned under Swiss law OR deemed a terrorist group by the UN as a whole (which has not happened) "Under current law, [declaring Hamas a terrorist group] is only possible if the United Nations Security Council designates Hamas as a terrorist organization, which it has not done. Therefore, Switzerland must create a special law that must be approved by parliament, says Marco Sassòli, professor for international law at the University of Geneva, told SWI swissinfo.ch. "

https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/wirtschaft/schweiz-kann-hamas-nicht-so-einfach-auf-die-terrorliste-setzen/48887660

Wickster12345 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Also check out this link which shows that even if financial transactions or aid are scrutinized under various provisions of Swiss law this does not necessarily mean that Hamas has to be officially banned aka labelled terrorist. https://www.barrons.com/news/switzerland-probing-hamas-financing-attorney-general-fef4dbeb Wickster12345 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Refugee update
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240129-turkiye-foreign-minister-urges-world-to-prevent-starvation-diseases-in-gaza/ 216.246.128.156 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)