User talk:GenoV84/2023/February

Revert in Abolition of Monarchy
Hello, you revert my rewording in "Abolition of Monarchy". However, could the original wording of "Abolished its monarchy through a decision by the country's politicians without a referendum being held." and 'Decision of the parliament and without consent of the people of Nepal, as a referendum was never held" is too bias? 149.110.134.93 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem with your edits on that article is not the wording, but the fact that you removed sourced content without adequately explaining why, twice, because that behavior qualifies as disruptive editing. 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.
 * GenoV84 (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (third request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Septimania into Siege of Narbonne (752–759). 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello GenoV84. I came across a couple of your contributions in my wanderings through our encyclopaedia and i notice that you have on several occasions ~ and, for example ~  called things vandalism which are not, by our definition, vandalism. I suggest you might want to reread WP:NOTVAND to remind yourself, especially as calling people vandals may be perceived as a personal attack. In addition, while i'm not trying to pick, i don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED means what you seem to thing ~ it is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Deliberate removal of sourced content and reliable references, as those editors did, definitely qualifies as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:VANDALISM on Wikipedia, and those edits have been reverted accordingly to the aforementioned WP policies and guidelines. You should reprimand those editors who deliberately attempted to ruin those articles for their disruptive behavior and nonsensical attempts to delete relevant informations with reliable references from this project (other editors warned OKMG-1200 several times before me, for the exact same reasons), instead of wasting time here on my Talk page, because I did the right thing, not them. GenoV84 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a good look at the supposed "improvements" of those users, then come back here and dare to tell me that their edits weren't disruptive at all, that nobody was supposed to warn them for their blatantly disruptive behavior, and that I wasn't justified in reverting them because they were allegedly "trying to improve this encyclopedia". Come on, do it. GenoV84 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You claim that WP:NOTCENSORED [...] is specifically referring to material which some people find offensive, not just any removal or retention of material, but this template here exists on Wikipedia and contradicts your baseless assertion, as it can be used specifically to warn those editors that attempt to "remove topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article". The template doesn't mention "potentially offensive content" at all, it explicitly mentions "topically-relevant content", i.e. any relevant informations that can be found in a Wikipedia article. You're still wrong. GenoV84 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)