User talk:Taquim

October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to David Tutera has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: David Tutera was changed by Taquim (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890403 on 2014-10-04T22:01:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
See WP:3RR. In short, you and the IP both have been edit warring, and could have been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm Mendaliv. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because there are no links in your signature. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 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. Corky 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a major news story covered by all media outlets regarding a major change to the mission statement of USCIS. Any story with this much coverage in the news is a likely candidate for mention in the organization's Wikipedia entry. I wrote 2 brief, neutral sentences describing the change and added a citation. Without contacting me first you simply delete my edit. I then make an offer to you to reword the edit and add additional sources such as Fox News. You hold firm in your opinion that there should be no mention of this major change whatsoever. When I reverted your deletion I was combating vandalism, not engaging in an edit war. Taquim 20:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Taquim
 * No, what you're engaging in is an edit war simply because someone disagree with your edits. My disagreement with you is not vandalism (maybe you read up at WP:Vandalism). You need to get a consensus with others weighing in on the matter (maybe WP:RFC?). Until then, it shouldn't be re-added due to a disagreement... that's according to Wikipedia guidelines. Quit your childish games, learn you accept others are not vandalizing when they disagree with you, and discuss. Corky  06:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * or perhaps you can stop vandalizing my edit and discuss and get consensus instead.
 * Well once again, you don't know how Wikipedia works. People like you are reasons why experienced users leave. I've discussed my reason many of times. There's no reason for me to continue dealing with a liberal who can't take no for an answer. Corky  11:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * : : If by liberal you mean someone who would never boast about voting for a racist you are correct. My edit of the USCIS page, however was utterly neutral and provides important, encyclopedic information to readers of all political persuasions. Once again, if you'd like to add Fox News as a source to my edit, please do. If you have suggestions regarding how to rewrite the entry and better convey the information I'm open to that as well.

December 2019
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Racial views of Donald Trump, 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". Thank you. Paisarepa (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

June 2020
- MrX 🖋 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

kjkj
kjkTaquim (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Boycotts
Hey, just wanted to tell you I agreed with you about the Jimmy John's article edits regarding the boycott (I still don't eat there). I know it's an old topic now, but I happened upon it, and felt like I should say I felt your position was absolutely reasonable and they're wrong not to include it.

- An internet passerby. 2604:CA00:12C:21CC:0:0:860:F7FA (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is unfortunate that rich people with a public relations team are able to hide the truth in an effort to burnish their reputation. Taquim (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2022 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)