User talk:Humenni

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 1Halpo1. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese inventions
Hi Halpo and welcome to Wikipedia,

You definitely have some valid points there, especially regarding redundancy and repetition. My main concern is that the deleted information is not repeated per se. A better approach, I believe, is to consolidate all the scattered non-Chinese-related into a few sentences either at the end or at the beginning of the paragraph rather than have them all over the place. What do you think?

Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 19:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks perfect. Nicely done.
 * Thanks! Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Prehistoric warfare

 * If you read the source cited, it discusses only tribal societies in the present day (i.e. roughly, the Iron Age). I can move it to its own "Modern Age" section if you prefer. Wolfdog (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason I inserted the deliberate phrase "modern-day" is because this is, after all, an article on prehistoric warfare and I'm trying to avoid easy confusion. The entire section "Endemic Warfare" in fact seems irrelevant to this article. Wolfdog (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. That's why I said "roughly" and offered the "Modern Age" alternative. In either case, what do you think of the fact that "Endemic Warfare" has its own page yet still has its own section included on the "Prehistoric warfare" page. The sources listed point to modern tribes, not prehistoric ones. I was willing to incorporate endemic warfare issues into a section on the modern age, but otherwise it doesn't seem to fit for this article at all. 20:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the section on the talk page, and I'll comment on it. When you say that "the warring societies themselves were not historical," do you mean "the warring societies themselves had not developed a system of written history"? That seems to me a very unusual (and maybe problematic) way to use the term "historical." I think most of the Wikipedia audience would not consider any societies existing today to be "prehistoric" as implied by your sense of the word "historical." I'm mostly talking about the wording here. A "prehistoric society" most widely means "a society existing before the advent of societies with writing systems," but using it to mean "a society that has not yet invented a writing system" seems unfairly presumptive, as if all societies like this will inevitably "advance" into a society with a writing system, which would be a clear sign of our own cultural bias. If this is the definition you're using and the bias were false, then we wouldn't even say "prehistoric(al)"; instead, we'd just neutrally say "non-historical." The word "prehistoric" used all throughout this article, according to your writing system-based definition of "historical" (if I've got that right), specifically implies "before writing has arisen in any given society itself." Wolfdog (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean. I just figured that endemic warfare would already be included in each Age section anyway. Wolfdog (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nivkh people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedentary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meaning. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting needs sources
Hi, 1Halpo1,

I see you just did an edit you characterized as "trimming" in your edit summary, but I saw that it introduced a factual error, so I reverted it. I have found as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors here on Wikipedia that many attempts to copyedit articles without sources at hand can introduce subtle errors, unless the copy editor has reliable sources about the article topic at hand while editing. Thanks for your efforts to tidy up articles. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semai. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voluntarism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anarchism. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 15 November 2016 (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.

Anarchism
i reverted your changes to Anarchism once again. Please use the article's talk page to discuss them and try to build consensus for their inclusion. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Liberalism sidebar - change from Libertarianism to Right-libertarianism
In the spirit of WP:BRD, one your bold change was reverted you should not have undone the revert, but opened a discussion about your proposed change on the talk page. I have restored the status quo, and have opened the discussion at Template_talk:Liberalism_sidebar, please contribute there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you need to wait. The discussion has only been open less than a day. Please revert yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello. I have noticed that you 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! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:24, 30 January 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)