User talk:Supreme Dragon/Archive 1

Template change
All the UNSCR pages seemed to be broken by your template change. I reverted the edit. Uglemat (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite
Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Emblem of the Socialist Republic of Romania
Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. Supreme Dragon, thanks for creating Emblem of the Socialist Republic of Romania!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Adding material not drawn from self-published sources would improve the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Eastern Bloc flags and emblems
Hi Supreme Dragon, thanks for the contribution. My real life is quite busy these days so I can hardly take any requests. I'll see what I can do for the improvements in the future. By the way, I noticed some texts might have similarity with hubert-herald.nl. Be careful for the copyright issue - I would suggest rewriting these parts as hubert-herald claims copyrights at the bottom of their pages instead of Creative Commons license. Regards. --Ericmetro (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flag of the Socialist Republic of Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red flag. 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) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your interests in Taiwan and China
Hello. You seem very interested in Taiwan/ROC and China/PROC. I don't know why you insist on taking the issue to ArbCom when the dispute continues. I think that taking this to ArbCom is premature at any moment. Also, you continually make RMs on Taiwan/ROC. Well, I did tell you to convert one RM to RfC proposal on split. Um... before making any more RMs, I think you might discuss the issue at either WT:TAIWAN, WT:CHINA, WT:NC-ZH, or WT:AT. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the RM at Talk:List of political parties in Taiwan resulted in "moved". --George Ho (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Another update: an RM that you initiated at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China is closed as "no consensus". --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm troubled by your ArbCom request, which is declined. To be fair, I did try one failed attempt, so I withdrew. Can you withdraw the request as well? The members decline your request. As said, you should try WP:VPP and WP:RFC. I'll help you if you need one. Also, why not WP:Teahouse? --George Ho (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. Your recent edit to the page China appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read this carefully
Doug Weller talk 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder Doug. I'll exercise caution as I can. Supreme Dragon (talk)

Minor
I see that you mark many of your edits as minor when they most certainly are not. Please read WP:MINOR carefully. For example: "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette" --T*U (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450 Closed
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. GoldenRing (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Honest request
I think you should avoid editing any article about Taiwan and PRC, broadly construed. You're a partisan and your editing will likely never be welcome here. The reason I'm making this suggestion is that ARBCOM will sanction editors for bad behavior by implementing a topic ban. This usually comes after many months of interpersonal problems on wiki. Rather than go that route (as you have been) you can take preemptive action by just staying away from those areas for a few years and involve yourself elsewhere. Wikipedia operates on WP:V and when you edit in areas you don't care about it's far easier to be objective, look for reliable sources when you don't know what the honest truth is, and build a habit of writing based on sources. When you come at Wikipedia with an agenda, then you fall susceptible to confirmation bias and you adopt a battleground mindset, which we don't want. Maybe editing somewhere else will take the fun out of it for you. If that's the case, then you're not here to build an encyclopedia and you need to pick a different website for your hobby. If you want to write an encyclopedia, then you can find any number of maintenance tasks to do. You could join some other WikiProject and build those good habits of reading material you've never read and determining what to write based on the consensus of those sources. That way, you can someday return to editing about Taiwan when you like. If you keep tilting at windmills, you're going to earn a TBAN and you'll leave Wikipedia altogether. What I'm suggesting is a way to prevent that. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

European Union?
Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict--181.90.39.122 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly note
Please read WP:MOSMAC carefully before you attempt any more edits to pages related to the Republic of Macedonia. This is highly inflammable material where sparks tend to fly, and it is easy to get burnt. Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And also read Naming conventions (Chinese) and particularly Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles before you make any additional changes to China and Taiwan-related articles please. Alex ShihTalk 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I advise you to read both of the Wikipedia guidelines provided both, in addition to Article_titles. If you plan to make any more controversial changes against community consensus, either try discussing it at the talk page first or you might have to face community sanction on these highly sensitive topics. Alex ShihTalk 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of Lithuania into Lithuania–Russia relations. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at East York, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition
Please discuss on the talk page rather than edit warring on the article itself, until a consensus can be achieved. Thank you. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Image gallery spam
Could we get you to read over MOS:IMAGELOC. Would also be nice if you could include edits summaries.--Moxy (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Czech Republic does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!

July 2017
Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to North Korea does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. ''Please use edit summaries for edits other than fixing typos, grammar, or formatting. This is especially important when your edits are non accompanied by references.'' - MrX 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Moxy (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017, addition
Regarding your edits at Flag of South Korea (and Flag of North Korea), there seems to be an aspect about Wikipedia that you have not grasped: Wikipedia is a community project.
 * Wikipedia is based on consensus between editors. That means that differences in opinion about content has to be solved through discussion. In the case of the "Flag of South Korea" article, you were specifically asked to participate in the talk page discussion. Instead you just made another change, without explanation, thereby effectively inhibiting the possibility of reaching a consensus.
 * Wikipedia is based on co-operation between editors. That means that it is necessary to explain the reason for your edits to other editors. This can best be done through an edit summary. This has been specifically explained to you on your talk page, but In the the 42 edits following this explanation, you have only used the edit summary twice.
 * Wikipedia is based on mutual trust. That means that the signals you give other editors has to be precise and correct. Marking edits as "minor" when they are not is considered poor etiquette.

In this edit you disregard the request for talk page discussion, you avoid giving an edit summary and you falsely mark the edit as minor. If you continue to disregard the rules, guidelines and etiquette of Wikipedia, you may soon see your edit priveleges restricted. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

/Archive 1.