User talk:Gim709

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits to Russian nationalism! I couldn't verify these statements in the referenced sources; could you please have a look and add more specific inline citations next to them?

--

A few tips to get started.

Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing, at the heart of which two tools for achieving consensus: edit history and article talk page. Review them before making your own edit and, if a similar edit was removed, find out what were the reasons.

When making an edit, check that in addition to referencing reliable sources, wording of the edit doesn't make conclusions not stated explicitly in the source, regardless of how obvious they are. Such conclusions must be made by readers on their own. Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not essay provides further examples.

If an edit is reverted, see this solely as an invitation to discuss on the article talk page. Reverting someone's edit, as well as challenging such revert politely, are essential components of collaborative editing in Wikipedia. Neither of these actions is considered hostile.

When discussing, stay focused on getting to a consensus how the article should look, grounded in the Wikipedia policies. Discuss representation of the sources in the article, but not the topic itself, other editors, or their actions. Ignore attempts to sidetrack discussion and get back to the point politely but firmly; be aware of unscrupulous tactics used to stonewall or evade conversation and how to respond to them.

And don't forget to enjoy your editing! PaulT2022 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Russian nationalism. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you.

I've detailed my specific concerns in the Talk:Russian_nationalism#Nationalism_during_the_Soviet_epoch_references thread. --PaulT2022 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gim709! I came across your edits on Chinese nationalism and just wanted to let you know I've reverted this – this type of thing needs a source behind it for verifiability's sake. Feel free to let me know on my talk page or ask at the Teahouse if you have any questions. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tunakanski. I noticed that you recently removed content from World War II without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ― TUNA × 15:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Germanic peoples, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You need to start using edit summaries when removing content. TylerBurden (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't have time to edit more after deleting. Gim709 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to do the same thing on the same article, removing Denmark from the same article. That region includes part of Denmark. TylerBurden (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.academia.edu/10276827 There seems to be some debate around it but this might support the removal, please use edit summaries because it is very unclear what you are doing and you are editing major articles. TylerBurden (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I just know, the North Pole of Jastorf culture was East Holstein and West Mecklenburg in Germany. Gim709 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.igenea.com/en/ancient-tribes/germanic-peoples This source includes Jutland which is in modern day Denmark, but since it is contested may as well go with what is certain which is modern day Germany. TylerBurden (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to reconsider this decision, maybe it also included Denmark. Gim709 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you what the point is of these edits? People discussing with you on your talk page are likely to have this talk page on our watchlist, which includes your user page and it is a bit strange how you keep saying you are forever leaving only to remove it again and again. TylerBurden (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military history of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instrument of Surrender. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the categories from List of wars involving Germany. Bamyers99 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nazi Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop fucking around with this article? It's an important subject and it's not suitable for you to fiddle around with it as if it's an article about Star Wars or some Disney film. This is not a suitable subject for you to play around with. If you want to do that, please go to some pop culture subject, not an vitally important historical one.

Wikpedia is not ome social media playground, it's a serious effort to create an encyclopedia, not a fan-site.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop, I'm sorry, forgive me because I just want to improve the article. Gim709 (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edits at Germans, I can fully understand that Beyond My Ken got angry (although maybe their language was too strong). Please use edit summary, and please use the preview function instead of constantly correcting yourself. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Gim709 (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Germans I only added one link, and corrected a part of this article with obvious sources based on the article on Germanic peoples; I think it's fine. Gim709 (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I fixed information with source (changed)..., it's also fine. Gim709 (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Japanese holdout. 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. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Japan just sign the official document on September 2, 1945???!!! Not necessarily wrong. Gim709 (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand, thanks for reminding. Gim709 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you add information to an article, and a citation to support it, please do not use randomly selected index entries, which you appear to have done here. The pages cited from Steinberg do not support the contention that the German Empire was the "world's first welfare state", and those pages happen to be exactly those cited in the book's index for Bismarck's considering socialists etc. as "enemies of the Reich". If you don;t have supporting citations, don't add the infomration, and certainly don't use citations which do not support the infomration in a bid to stop the information from being deleted.

I'm going to take a look at some of your previous edits, and if I find that you've done this before, it may wind up as a bigger deal, with you being reported to admins for misbehavior, potentially leading to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Information and source about the German Empire being the first welfare state is based on an article about Otto von Bismarck, and I replaced the word "tribes" with the word "peoples" because I found the 2 words "Germanic peoples" in source; I also changed from "British Empire" to "United Kingdom" because the British Empire included colonies, not just the country itself...; I also removed the extra dot and wrote "Allied Powers" which is equivalent to "Allies" in World War I. And not necessarily all my edits are correct but I never have the intend to vandalize Wikipedia articles, thanks for your reminding me. Gim709 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German Empire was the first welfare state in modern times but not in entire history, my mistake; anyway, next times I will be more careful. Gim709 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Information and source about the German Empire being the first welfare state is based on an article about Otto von Bismarck," Yes, but you supported it with a citation to the Steinberg bio, with pages that said nothing of the sort. If not an attempt to keep the info from being deleted, then it is, at the very least, extremely sloppy work. You have received a number of complaints on this page, so I think you'd best pay more attention to your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks again for your reminding me; best luck to you, friend. Gim709 (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from German nationalism into another page. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 11:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page East Asia. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use your sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. I can't see a reason why you're deleting words from articles and then adding them back a few minutes later with a summary of "seems fine". Per the above warning, this is not a useful edit summary. Belbury (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]