Woooh!
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop adding that same image to multiple articles. Many of those edits constitute vandalism or violations of the NPOV policy. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Emperor Meiji. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for informing me. Won't happen again, Sir. Polozooza (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Empire of Japan, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not push the image you uploaded. Emperor Meiji's image is already in the Meiji era section. Besides, the image you added is not a good one. Oda Mari (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Emperor Meiji, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please do not push an image you uploaded. Oda Mari (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Emperor Meiji has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You added "..., suffering from diabetes and kidney failure, collapsed and died after participating in the Tokyo University graduation ceremonies in July 1912." at here . It was copied from page 382 of this copy-righted book and you didn't cite it properly. I don't think it was an appropriate edit. Please don't do that kind of edit again. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know it was not allowed - you didn't explain yourself before but thanks for clearifying. What if I would change the wording so that they aren't exactly copied any more? Polozooza (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to fix your cite error at first but could not and I searched other ref. Then I found out more detailed refs. and they said differently. Especially the second pdf file, See page 8 and 9. There are quotes from the old news paper and the Emperor was diagnosed as uremia on July 20. So I rewrote the section and added two refs. Though it's a blog, it says it was at the dinner time on July 19 that the emperor got ill and fell, saying "My eyes are blurred". As for him, Japanese sources are more detailed and more reliable, I should say. Is there anything wrong with te ref I added? Oda Mari (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Perhaps that line "my eyes are blurred" is noteworthy. Any last words known? Polozooza (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to find his last words, but couldn't find any on the web. Probably you can find in some books in ja. As for the copyright, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Copyrights would be helpful. Of course, it is OK to paraphrase sentences in books. Or you should paraphrase them. Happy editing. Oda Mari (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, completely agree with you. Was meaning to get around to removing the CSD tag myself (it was PhGustaf (talk · contribs) who placed it there). Seems like an interesting character, but I'm not sure if he's definitely notable. In any case, it certainly shouldn't be speedied and nice job adding the refs to the article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have found at least three sources (from books and newspaper articles). It is an interesting figure, rather eccentric, but interesting. Polozooza (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the sources you added more closely, I have tagged it as a hoax. May I ask how you had access to all the offline sources when you were not the creator of the article? Also, none of the journals/books you have cited seem to exist... Jenks24 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lennert van Dessel, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop trying to maintain this hoax article. It wastes everyone's time and you run the risk of being blocked from editing wikipedia
andy (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted the removal of a contested image 3 times today already. Please stop. See WP:3RR, and pay attention to feedback from other editors. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound a little melodramatic but real people could die because we show an image that glorifies a mass murderer. Please do not restore it until discussions are complete. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit? Polozooza (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for it on Anders Behring Breivik! causa sui (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Hogbin did the same. Where is his block? Polozooza (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not crossed the 3RR line. Favonian (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither have I. We were both warned and after that warning, neither of us has edited the page. He decided it was neccesary to report me to the Noticeboard of incidents, as a result of which I was blocked. If I am to be blocked for this, so is he. Polozooza (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, on the talk page of the Breivik article, I have said I would stop editing the page and insisted on him to do the same. This was before this block. Polozooza (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1, 2, 3, 4. You have received two warnings about the 3RR rule. You chose to ignore them, and now you're blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look after the article for the next 24 hours - as you say, it's more than a bit melodramatic 
Egg Centric 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I try not to worry too much, unlike some other people. And thank you very much. :) Polozooza (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I support it. For the time being. :) Polozooza (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit, in Deaths in 2011 we do not report the perpetrator of the death. We do not write, for example, "shot by Anders Behring Breivik" or "executed by the state of Texas". So, the cause of death is "air strike" not air strike by Israel or Israeli air strike. The contributing editors endeavour to maintain a consistent approach and appearance. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me - my bad. Won't happen again, sir. Polozooza (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Polozooza, I have opened the discussion on Talk:Netherlands and invite you to discuss. I have temporarily restored the version that is in conformation with the source for consistency (but that does not mean I am in favour of any arrangement, I let the value of the sources count...)... L.tak (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, fine Polozooza (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As you have seen, just adding back the numbers doesn't help. If you have sources, it really is time to share them and discuss which ones are most appropriate. Until there is consensus, please do not change the number again, as it's considered edit warring (and could get you blocked). L.tak (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
