User talk:Smommss

Do not respond.
You may revert any corrections I contribute. to any article. However, I have learned that even when I have been published as a recognized scholar in a discipline or a field of study, it means nothing to writers, who take a far too proprietary interest in their pieces. Therefore I shall waste no more time correcting, debating, arguing or citing backups for such. Revert and I shall save my time and effort and allow wikipedia to continue with the reputation that it has acquired for slap-dash, half-baked, undocumented and unresearched articles, written by under-educated pseudo-intellectuals.


 * No point in writing something if you don't want a response. If you follow our policies at WP:VERIFY, etc you might have less problems Your insight and knowledge is valued as having benefits in finding sources meeting our criteria of reliability and possibly WP:UNDUE, but you still need to be able to cite sources. I also notice you don't seem to take part in article talk page discussions, eg at Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. You are much more likely to convince others if you actually discuss the issues with them at the appropriate article talk page. Throwing around insults isn't very impressive, by the way. Doug Weller  talk 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Your recent editing history at Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

November 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Hayk. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ERA
Hi Smommss, Please read MOS:ERA and stop just asserting one form over the other - Note that on Alyattes of Lydia and Orontid dynasty you broke a number of images on each. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I checked this, and there were no images or links broken. As a Jew, I find such christo-centric dating demeaning, belittling and offensive.


 * The thing is, we can't care about offending religious sensibilities and still be an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view. Thus we allow images of Muhammad (although we often tell editors how to avoid viewing them), we don't call Jesus "Christ" except where context requires it, we don't call Rama "Lord Rama" or refer to Muhammad as simply "the Prophet". Some Christians find BCE just as offensive. We've addressed this particular problem with a guideline requiring discussion on the talk page before changing the established era style. Please respect this. I have to even though I prefer BCE myself. And please sign with 4 tildes, ie ~ . Doug Weller  talk 07:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were "images broken". Compare to your version  and  to your version . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit at Cyrus I was a clear example of "original research"
You added "and conflicts with it entirely." to a reference. That was not just inappropriate, it was original research which is strictly against policy. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gao (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gao_%28surname%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gao_%28surname%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)