Hello, DaRealPrinceZuko, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Indigenous peoples in Colombia. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. You changed a quotation, evidently to meet your pov - the quotation included "for the black communities, one for Indian communities" which you changed to "for the black communities, one for Amerindian communities"Doug Wellertalk10:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Errantios also assumed ownership of the article just by brushing off my edit as "not an improvement". Are you also implying that a user gets to undo an edit, just because said edit does not please them? DaRealPrinceZuko03:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to the Troubles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I don't recall editing anything related to The Troubles. 03:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
"The Troubles" is admittedly a somewhat misleading as a name for the contentious topic designation because it also covers the Great Famine, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. This edit to Genocide of Indigenous peoples falls within the scope of the topic because you added the British occupation of Ireland to a list of examples of genocide of indigenous peoples. — Callitropsis🌲[talk·contribs]04:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that information predated my edit. I just created a new section for it and restyled the information. Also, I've removed the article, even though the edit I provided doesn't specifically mention the Troubles or the Great Famine. 04:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
Thank you for contributing to the article Pseudohistory. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Wellertalk12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DaRealPrinceZuko! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of American Indian Wars several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mainland Japan, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I've never heard of the Empire of Japan having imperial designs on California, especially at this early stage in its modernization. Not impossible, I guess, but very unlikely; especially given that they were on much more firmer ground to pursue similar aims in Hawaii during the late 19th century, but chose not to in order to avoid upsetting the US. None of the sources cited in the article mention this. If you have any, please cite them.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, it wasn't even a minor possession. None of the sources I checked in the article confirm that. All of them acknowledged the farm as the first Japanese immigrant community in the US, but not as a de jure Japanese possession. (Such a thing would've been controversial in California at the time, to put it mildly.) Good sources are going to be needed to confirm this assertion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the colony wasn't owned by the Japanese government, that does not change the fact that it was owned by a community of soldiers and settlers that received financial support from military personnel, even if the colony itself wasn't recognized. By that logic, you would have to dismiss the notion that Fort Ross and Fort Elizabeth were not owned by Russia, just because they were not recognized as colonies. Plus, it was recognized as the "first Japanese colony in America."[1]DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet still served as military personnel, whether or not they were loyal to the government, thus making the settlement a vassal of the military. A colony does not have to be owned by a foreign government to count at one, as a colony can also be owned by an active military or a private company working for the government, as was the case with Santo Tomás by Belgian settlers. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
