Hi Paokara, Greetings to you. Source in the article does not indicate of Volkanoski' mother but only his father. Pls note that if you want to state Volkanoski's Greek mother, than pls provide source. Thank you.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)
Orphaned non-free image File:St George Dragons Logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:St George Dragons Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
@
Tgeorgescu, it goes nowhere because the proposed change from BC to BCE is not a change in date system or.. really of anything. BCE and CE are still based on BC and AD and denote the periods before and after Jesus was born. There is no purpose in changing them.
Paokara777 (
talk)
06:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)reply
This sounds like a straw man argument to try and shift the issue from one thing (changing BC to BCE) to the inaccuracy with our current dating system (4BC is the real BC). Which would you like to discuss?
Paokara777 (
talk)
06:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)reply
You need to include citations when you add/change content. Continuing to make unsourced edits, whether they're correct or not, could lead to a block.
Wikipedia:Citing sources would be worth a read.
Although it seems to be incorrect, the Shellharbour claim is indeed sourced. If you ever come across anything you think is unsourced (and you've thoroughly checked the references in the article) then feel free to remove it. –
2.
O.
Boxing16:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
You're threatening to block my wiki account due to a correct edit i made?
OK, regarding your request to read "citing sources", when i made the edit, I intended on putting the source/citation in the edit summary box, however it didn't allow me to post that with a Youtube link. So published the correction without a source and started to draft a note in the talk page to address the change and to cite my source for the change, you reverted my edit and subsequently added the above note before i could publish my comments in the talk page.
Firstly,
this edit summary gives no indication you were attempting to cite a source. So yeah, I reverted your edit...9 minutes later, and issued a standard {{subst:uw-unsourced2}} template (youve already had one friendly note about unsourced edits, so that was the first warning). You must not have noticed, but I decided to strike out that warning in good faith.
Secondly, you don't appear to have read the guidance on citing sources; posting a link in the edit summary or on the talk page isn't how it's done.
Lastly, no threat has been issued. I advised you that continuing to add unsourced content could lead to a block. If such a block was handed out, it would be to prevent further unsourced edits to BLPs. If you want to ignore my advice and crack on with adding unsourced content...then go for it. No skin off my nose. Cheerio. –
2.
O.
Boxing17:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Nothing I have edited or added to any wiki article has EVER been unsourced. Sure, maybe i have not gone about it in the right way (as you state in your second paragraph) and making a technical mistake on Wikipedia is something that i am likely to be guilty with as i am a casual editor. However BANS are to be used for repeat vandals and violators. Not for someone making good edits. Your note on my talk page threatening on blocks is not in good faith of this wiki. Goodbye
Paokara777 (
talk)
00:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
You must have a short memory, because
this is quite clearly unsourced. It's not a technical mistake. It's an unsourced edit. An edit that is still unsourced, because you still haven't added a citation. –
2.
O.
Boxing02:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Sea Peoples, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per
MOS:ERA, do not change era designations without valid reason or consensus on the talk page.Donald Albury14:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Donald Albury, thank you for the kind welcome, however note that i have been using wikipedia and making contributions for quite some time. Regarding the above, the original non stub wiki for this article is BC and it was changed against MOS:ERA protocol to a CE article. I am simply reverting this change.
If, however, you think this should constitute a conversation about why this article needs to be changed to a CE article rather than a BC article please state your arguments in the
Talk:Sea_Peoples page.
Paokara777 (
talk)
01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Donald Albury, interesting to find you here again. The change from AD to CE was against the
MOS:ERA which is that the established ERA notations should not be changed "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". My revert was not nonstandard or unusual, in fact the original change from an AD to a CE article was nonstandard which is why i reverted it back.
Paokara777 (
talk)
02:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Donald Albury, The original established article was BC/AD and it was unnecessarily changed. I will revert that change to comply with
MOS:ERA "which is that the established ERA notations should not be changed "unless there is some substantial reason for the change"."
Paokara777 (
talk)
13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply