Angele201002

Welcome!

Hi Angele201002! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! VR _talk 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Refrain from engaging in disruptive editing on Panjshir conflict. India Today is a reliable source whether you like it or not. Pakistan's involvement was not claimed by India contrary to your blatant misrepresentation. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It may be reliable generally, but India Today is not a reliable, unbiased source for things involving Pakistan. Adding a sanctions alert doesn't change that. Besides, RS from both India and Pakistan have determined that the news channel is misrepresenting facts related to Afghanistan and Panjshir and therefore cannot be considered reliable.

India: https://www.altnews.in/india-today-aaj-tak-publishes-report-on-fake-handle-on-ahmad-masood/ Pakistan: https://www.dawn.com/news/1644845

If you have other sources, then you should update the article with them.

February 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lima Group. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No your edits are unconstructive, you are needlessly trying to push a point when the source is claiming otherwise. Again, nobody is discussing Peru's withdrawal. Thank you.Angele201002 (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Lima Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patriotic Party (Turkey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regionalism. 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) 05:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Angele201002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to 2022 FIFA World Cup does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Vpab15 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Mate it's your edits that are NPOV. Only trying to show the controversies while trying to hide the responses (which have received coverage from almost every major news publication) is what is NPOV, not trying to show that while there was and is criticism, there have also been responses to them.Angele201002 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Other editor has now reverted your changes to the fourth paragraph. It is definitely undue to dedicate most of the space to responses about the criticism and not mention any of the criticism itself. There might be some way to rephrase the fourth paragraph in a more balanced way, but what you did is not that. I'd suggest to discuss in the talk page your concerns about NPOV. Vpab15 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edit removed the relatively brief description of the criticisms and replaced it with a lengthy description of the countercriticisms. That is not NPOV. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article, if you'd like to see modifications to the way the controversies are handled in the lede, please add your input there. Crescent77 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The brief description of the criticisms has an entire page dedicated to it. Plus it was removed after consensus on the talk page, and re-added without consensus. Anyways, if you want to add that, fine, I'm not against it. However, responses to the criticisms, which have been covered by almost every major news publication needs to be added to the lede. I propose, as a compromise, to add both the criticisms and the responses.Angele201002 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:LEAD to understand why the information you are inserting keeps getting removed from the lead. It is not that there has not been any counter-criticism because there obviously has been, but it is because the lead needs to reflect the body of the article. Multiple users have continued to insert counter-criticism on the grounds of hypocrisy, racism, and orientalism but have done basically nothing to actually flesh out those counter-criticisms in the article itself. Continuing to insert this into the lead and with equal weight to the fairly lengthy criticism section (which frankly could probably be scaled back) is undue without some pretty major changes to the article itself. Jay eyem (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)