User talk:1Kwords

Hi 1Kwords,

Not vandalism. There are two paragraphs which have nothing to do with the article. Read the edit before talking about vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.85.251 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor: Assume good faith. Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms. Stay very civil. Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Consult Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor. If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage."

You did neither of these. Kindly go fvck yourself. You're a terrible moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.85.251 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo deleted my contribution based on the website that I used. Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the site? Mythdestroyer 09:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See my edit comment and if you wish to discuss it please do so on the talk page of the article. 1Kwords (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the source was reinserted. I removed it again. - Location (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arrested_v._detained. The lead should either say arrested or detained. Please change your recent addition of 'captured' to one of the terms for which there was consensus.

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed over on the Kaga article that you felt the article had a bit of an issue, and someone responded "well, it has a perfect 5 rating." I hadn't noticed that voting option so I rated it based on how I felt, I encourage you to go give it a vote too. Kaga votey link

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bachelor party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Trafficking

Nickel–metal hydride battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chevron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing to relatively recent contributors, including on the talk page, and asking if they want to help out. I still think there's a fair amount of work with this whole money laundering aspect, not that we've made mistakes, but rather in terms of making a good article better. For example, I think officials of the U.S. Justice Department have directly said they did not want to punish HSBC harder and risk the bank losing its license---because of risk of major economic disruption.

If you have time, please, jump in and help. We can probably very much use your help. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed a little unsure about how to use the RFC template so I thought I'd drop in and give a little advice. First and foremost, your RFC is in the "unsorted" category, which not everyone watches. You typically want to give it some sort of category with templates like this: {{rfc|pol|reli}} . This would include it in the list of politics related RFCs as well as the list of Religion related RFCs.

Second, there are lots of RFCs floating around out there, and user time is very limited. In order to get responses, you should really do all the work for us. This means explaining the dispute as neutrally as possible, and describing both sides to the best of your abilities. Sometimes this might not be possible if you're dealing with bad faith editors, but try to assume good faith until it is extremely obvious that good faith is absent. Additionally, you should include diffs of the dispute, for convenience. In longer and more complicated disputes, dozens of revisions are possible, after edits, partial reverts, and modifications are made. Sorting through this after a dispute has been raging for weeks is a nightmare, so diffs are always a welcome sight.

Finally, your efforts to resolve this dispute were limited to edit summaries. This is bad form, on both your parts. An RFC should not be the first and only comment on the talk page. You should attempt to resolve conflicts on your own before starting an RFC, starting with the article talk page. If that isn't seen, send the editor a message on their talk page, inviting them to discussion. Remember to assume good faith, most of my recent disputes have been the result of editors assuming bad faith in me, or I in them. Believe it or not, most people are here to improve the encyclopedia. Start a discussion and try to keep a cool head explaining why you think your position is correct. Paragraphs on a talk page can be much more persuasive than a sentence or two in a revert, which is seen by many as a slap in the face.

Hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was my mistake. I thought that the first sentence Talk:Honor_killing#Sweden_section_-_relevance was part of the RFC. Usually RFCs get their own section, though it isn't required. Also, I didn't see the messages on that user's talk page. You did mention it, but I forgot as I was writing my response, my bad. It seems to me that you have been more than patient with this user. They still have not responded on their talk page. This behavior strongly suggests to me bad faith POV pushing. User that demonstrate cynical behavior such as this merely count reverts per day and per user to skim under the WP:3RR. If two users are reverting him, as is the case here, he will either have to resort to dialog or silently concede. Let's leave the RFC open for a week and if there are no responses from him, or an overwhelmingly one-sided response to the RFC, as I expect, then we can close it. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-speed rail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1Kwords. Thank you for your support during the edit war. Now, my mail to RG seems to have been usefull (I said they harm to reputation and image of SNCF TGV) as they finally update their article :) world-speed-survey-2013. I hope that, now, other editors will be more prudent even with "reliable" sources. What about your WP:RFC now ? Regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! No problem. When you started to bring in more sources and your opponents kept going on about one single source instead of finding more, I decided whom to side with. I've seen similar debates before and the one who is in favour of bringing in outside arbitration or the one that seeks more sources to support his claim usually prevails. When the others did not respond to my suggestion of outside arbitration and made excuses for not finding more sources I had a good guess what was going to happen. Unfortunately the updated RG article does not seem to have ended the edit war and that a great disappointment to me. As for the RfC, I'll try to cancel it somehow. I think you should thank Z22 as well as he supported you, I don't want to steal credit from him. Cordialement, 1Kwords (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just thanks also Z22 for his help, as you suggested. The edit war seems (at least) finished, as the remained sentence hasn't been edited for 3 days (despite this sentence is near nonsenses and without relationship with its chapter). There is also another risk of "war edit" about the Spanish disaster.

Unfortunately, the same guy now attempt to attack and remodel the "Land speed record for railed vehicles" page...

Best regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1Kwords. I'm sorry to disturb you again, but could you help me again to maintain the neutrality of the Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles page ?

I'm afraid that the same guy "Bobyrayner" with its propaganda and misinformation try to make a new edition war, and he knows the mysteries to convince administrators against me. Unfortunately, I don't know theses tricks. And after its "loose" on the "High Speed Rail" page, he now attacks the "Land Speed Record Page".

If I'm again alone against this guy, administrator will again take sides for him. Could you help to denounce its actions to the administrators ?

Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour FlyAkwa, I think the reason that administrators side with your opponent is that while he indeed at times fail to adress valid points by those who oppose him, he doesn't launch into personal remarks. For instance he never agreed to bring in outside arbitration for the last dispute, or even to discuss the quality of Google Maps as a reliable source on geography. You on the other hand, while you do make good points, you also start calling people trolls and "chinese train fans". At one point you even implied that our differences of opinion of the section naming in HSR article was that I was stupid. I can't say for certain that this is why the administrators take side with him since I am myself not administrator, but if I was one, it could be a reason if I was reading quickly through talk pages and didn't go deep into the issue. If you wish to prevail again, instead of coming at others with accusations of bias ("you're a troll") or lacking mental agility, you should stick to criticising their sources and their edits only. There are WP guidelines about this, see WP:DNIV and WP:APR. Invoke wikipedia guidelines on where they apply to make your arguments. (this is the strategy I try to follow) Right now I don't have the time to get involved in another edit war, sorry. This might change later in the week. Good luck! Cordialement, 1Kwords (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts to try to end the edit warring on High-speed rail page. Now that the issue is closed. I have a high hope that we will continue to see it as closed. Z22 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z22 this is my first barnstar and it is great to know that my efforts are appreciated! 1Kwords (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R-77 (missile), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exfoliation (cosmetology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colgate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of whistleblowers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafale's Malaysia intertsered but.i read it the wrong sorces.that's why i put the real Sorces.Don't Say It124.13.234.53 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roebling (River Line station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single-track. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! are you planning to participate or should we proceed without your input? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guy Macon:, I am not planning to participate so go ahead. 1Kwords (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Yes you did something for which I was legitimately thankful for, removal of poor prose or "How to" advice. However, I think that several of your deletion nominations are misguided. I am not trying to judge you or anything, but those two S&W revolvers are very notable as two of the most powerful handguns ever made. Their power threshold has eliminated many other models from the marketplace such as the Savage Strikers, Thompson Center Contenders, Encores and Remington XP-100s which were single shot or bolt action pistols chambered in high powered rifle cartridges. Those 2 revolvers by S&W have been met with such demand for Silhouette shooting and handgun hunting that the demand for the others has pretty much vanished. Why carry what is essentially a chopped down rifle with no stock that beats you up when you can get the same power factor from a 5 shot revolver that is more comfortable to shoot and carry? There are sources out there and if you are an astute scholar of google you should know that they supress sources pertaining to firearms as part of their misguided antigun policy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I am not an active shooter myself and haven't fired a gun since the mid 90s, so I can't really comment on the quality of that firearm. I am still interested in discussing the sourcing for it, though. What must I do to find better sources on firearms with Google? If had found sources that prove market impact of this firearm that would have stopped me from nominating in the first place. 1Kwords (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can swamp the article with offline published sources if that would make you happy. Fortunately, google does not hold a monopoly on the world's knowledgebase.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, yes of course, offline sources are as good as online sources. I was hoping there would be settings in Google that I could have tuned. 1Kwords (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help you out on that, my friend. I know of no setting that can help you. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

Please excuse this notice, I am alerting recent participants at Homeopathy. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illegal immigration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi Civil War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2014 did you add approximately ten requests of inline reference in the Copenhagen S-train article. Extremely overdone (why?, when?, how? who? etc - all in less than 8 lines). Please try instead to help Wikipedia to improve by looking for references - which you as Swedish and highly educated ought to be able to to. I found support for each of your complaints within less than two minutes. The flag and a few examples had been fully sufficient. This is not a formal complaint, but please try to limit questions in the text when you feel sources are called for. We do actually have common readers of our articles. And to them does this form of questions seem strange. Also - over time is the use the talk-pages more constructive 83.249.172.121 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since we have common readers it is important to make it clear when WP strays from merely stating the facts into the realm of as-yet unsubstantiated speculation. It is important that our readers read with a critical eye. At the time I was rather suggesting, in a roundabout way, that speculation about future plans which may never come to pass is not a good source of content for an encyclopedia. That's what train enthusiast blogs are for. I think WP and especially train articles on WP should simply stick to the facts which answer questions like: How do the trains run? Where do they go? Part of that section read like a discussion, rather than informative prose. I don't know what your native language is, but let me tell you that googling for Danish sources when I only have a Swedish keyboard isn't at all likely to yield quality results. Rather than only criticising me, you should criticise the editor who wrote that section in the first place. 1Kwords (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your recent edits to Anthroposophy resulted in ungrammatical phrasings. Please be a little more careful in this regard.

Also: you removed material cited to high-quality published sources. If you doubt the value of these, it would be better request further sources (which I have now provided)--there are a variety of citation templates available to request this--rather than removing well-cited text without providing countervailing evidence. HGilbert (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1Kwords ! Since I'm not native in the English language have I wondered about "What is a port and was is a harbour ?". I asked a nice British contributor, who explained (largely) that generally a harbour can have several ports, but not the other way around. Hence did I use the expression "harbour to harbour" in the case of HH Ferry route. You have contradicted this. And therefore am I kindly asking if you are absolutely certain that "port to port" is better. Perhaps you could enlighten me even further, in my native language (Scanian accent Swedish) we have only "hamn" and in Danish (which I also know well) "havn". All well & cheers Boeing720 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that you aswell is Swedish (Hejsan !), by the way. But my question remains. I'm uncertain myself. But as I've understood it, is a harbour in general larger (or atleast as large as) a port. Boeing720 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt our barbarian native tongue lacks the vocabulary to make the distinction between harbour and port and it seems even the port and harbour articles are contradictory on the subject. 1Kwords (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to nominate the talk page for deletion? I rather suspect that you actually meant to nominate the article, in which case you beed to redo the nomination properly per WP:AFD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1Kwords. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

My apologies if I am disturbing, but I wonder if you would be willing to check through the reference lists that I have posted in the following talk sections, in order to see if any of them are useful to incorporate into these or other Wikipedia pages.

I would greatly appreciate if you would be willing to insert the most useful ones into appropriate articles.

Thanks in advance for any help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihadism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamism#Various_important_statistics_and_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_migrant_crisis#A_few_new_relevant_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_migrant_crisis#A_new_study_about_German_media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immigration_and_crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immigration_to_Sweden#An_updated_list_regarding_the_situation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden#An_updated_list_regarding_the_situation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No-go_area

David A (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David A: I must encourage you to read the enWP guidelines on WP:RS and make the edits yourself using the sources you have found to be worthy WP:RS. Editing wikipedia can be borth rewarding and entertaining and I would not wish to rob you of this pleasure. 1Kwords (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is more that I work an average of 9 hours a day, 7 days a week as the main bureaucrat for one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. I have tried to get a hole in my schedule to handle this for months, and failed completely. So, given your interest in these types of articles, apparent focus on facts rather than partisan ideology, and ability to read Swedish, I thought that it might be appropriate to ask you for help. David A (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David A: it is indeed appropriate to ask for help, but it is equally appropriate for me to say no. I can only regret that you prioritise other commitments above editing Wikipedia. If you don't have the time to do the edits you want done, why should anyone else prioritise editing you don't prioritise yourself? 1Kwords (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have severe OCD, and have fixated on managing my wiki for the last 3 years. I technically know that it is more important to share valuable information on Wikipedia, but haven't found the time to do so lately.

Thanks anyway in any case. David A (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: I can only wish you all the best in all your endeavours, whatever they may be. 1Kwords (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you change your mind, I have organised a lot of statistics and information links to a more easily overviewed list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links

You also seem to value facts over ideology, so help would still be very appreciated. David A (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: I am not likely to change my mind in the foreseeable future and I must ask you take me seriously on this instead of coming back to ask over and over again. Thanks in advance you for your future consideration. Again I cannot but wish you all the best. 1Kwords (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry. Never mind then. David A (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've reverted your edit to Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The news article to which you linked specifies the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, not Ethiopian. Also, I do not understand Swedish and used Google Translate to read it, but the news article doesn't clearly make any allegation about the church spying on behalf of the Eritrean government. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have obviously edited the wrong article. Well, it does make an allegation and I Swedish is my native tongue. Clearly the officials of that church in Sweden are regime sympathisers and the article states that government spies are active as members in the church. 1Kwords (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1Kwords, one church in Sweden is not representative of all churches. Your accusation of the "church community in Sweden are regime sympathisers" is Slander of an entire community of people. The term "regime sympathisers" in the connotation that you are using is equivalent to the terms "terrorism sympathiser". As such this is equivalent to calling all Muslims as "Terrorists" because a "few Muslims are". You can't slander an entire community of people in this manner and Wikipedia shouldn't make such bold accusations.Authorityofwiki (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my previous post. Those other things you dreamed up about terrorist sympathisers and unrelated stuff are a classical Straw Man and are a logical fallacy. So how do you think the Swedish Radio content should be presented? It is a WP:RS after all. The article states that all churches organisationally belonging to the one in the article are the extended arm of the Eritrean government. Some churches have broken free of E-govt control, but those are not the ones receiving state aid from the Swedish government. 1Kwords (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Radio is clearly presenting it's own POV by making such a claim. For your own education on Orthodox Christianity, you should read up on how the Orthodox Churches in general are a reflection and work with the nation they come from ie Russian Orthodox Church has ties to the Russian Government, Greek Church, Ethiopian Church (where there is clearly documented ongoing abuses by the government) but you didn't seem to add anything about that? My argument isn't a strawman because you are using a POV source to come to a conclusion ie "Eritrean Church members are regime sympathesers". Is "regime" in your statement, a negative connotated word? Because the word "regime" has been used in a negative connotation when speaking of governments that certain countries don't like. It's like calling a "freedom fighter"(government) , a "terrorist"(regime). The conclusion of the Swedish radio article is not a Reliable Source because it's filled with POV bias.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd claim about Swedish Radio. If anything, SR is usually very hesitant to publish negative news about immigrant community organisations. The straw man is where you accuse me of writing islamophobic arguments when I didn't. It is a regime because it's a dictatorship. 1Kwords (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your or SR's opinion of the Government as being a "dictatorship" doesn't change the fact of your slander of Community members (All members) as being "regime sympathesers". The Analogy of calling an entire group based on the actions a few of it's members is wrong no matter the group. You and your Swedish Radio source spouted Eritreanphobic sentiments and comments. Every Eritrean Orthodox Christian is not a "regime sympathesier" even if they go to a church that you or Swedish Radio has slandered as an "extension of the Eritrean government". What you are doing here is xenophobic/Eritreanphobic/Anti-ImmigrantPhobic. Stop your EritreanPhobic edits and rants.Authorityofwiki (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done with your ad hominem attacks now? Whatever you think you're doing, a debate or discussion it is not. 1Kwords (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ad hominem against you personally. But your claims against entire Eritrean Orthodox church members as being "regime sympathesiers" was and still is Broad Brush(Ad Hominem) attack on people that you Do not know personally nor the Radio Swedish(article) editors know either. I used analogies to make the point. I haven't accused you of anything personally but your edits and source are questionable and downright xenophobic.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think your comments on my tal page misguided, bullying and lack concact with reality. Accusing me of ranting is absurd, the ranter is always the one writing the longest posts. Coming to a user talk page instead of lifting the issue on the talk page of the article is the frequent tactic of someone not wanting other editors who know the subject to weigh in so you can rant in peace here. 1Kwords (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a statement on the Ethiopian Orthodox article with no basis in reality or fact. It was removed by Gyrofrog, rightfully so. Then you ranted and made broadbrush accusations against "Eritrean Orthodox church members are regime sympathesiers"(not verbatim), I corrected your rant. No need to have this "discussion" in the wrong article anyways. Other editors are more than welcome to read it here. I won't waste the talkpage space of the article for your edit which was reverted. Authorityofwiki (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's yet another absurd claim that article talk page space is somehow limited. 1Kwords (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith when you added your edit. Then I read Gyrofrog's revert statements in your talkpage. I don't speak Swedish nor understand it. However, I do read and understand English. You made claims in English. I countered those claims you made in English because I couldn't allow a claim to be made that sounded like "Stereotyping", "Generalisation", "Xenophobia" based on a Swedish source (That is Not Translated and Confirmed for Validity). I assumed good faith but its unreasonable to expect Good Faith means "Accepting your Claims at Face Value". Nope won't do that! Good faith is a two way-street.Authorityofwiki (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up guidelines about Translated and Confirmed for Validity. There's no such guideline, sources may be in any language. You're also acting like you have some policing authority by stating I can't allow. You don't have the authority to make up rules yourself. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not bullying. For all your understanding of English, the concepts of good faith and consensus may yet elude you. 1Kwords (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel bullied that isn't my intention. But there are wikipedia guidelines on use of non-English sources on English Wikipedia. [1]. Also even if your source is translated, the content matters as well. Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that I feel bullied, the issue is that you are using bullying instead of referring to Wikipedia Guidelines. You didn't even refer to them until I prompted you, instead you're making up stuff on your own with connections to neither guidelines nor reality. The guideline you linked to says Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. ... it's not the content that matters, it's the reliability of the source. You simply can't bully material out of ENWP because WP:UDONTLIKEIT. 1Kwords (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you added is still questionable from a NPOV standpoint. I already showed why your additions to articles did not meet NPOV. Any neutral reader of your addition would ask the question, "Does it mean all Eritrean Orthodox church members are regime sympathesiers?" Because your source made an impression of such a conclusion. You ran along with it and concluded "Eritrean orthodox church" members are "regime sympathesiers". I called BS and ontop of it, you used a non-English source to come to this conclusion. You did Original Research by using an unverified non-English source. The list goes on and on, on the many Wikipedia guidelines your addition violated. Gyrofrog already reverted it and asked you the question, your answer clearly shows Original Research and Anti-Eritrean bias.Authorityofwiki (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a leader in said church? 1Kwords (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor on Wikipedia that is all.Authorityofwiki (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a username like that? It seems specifically designed to intimidate other, proper, editors. What about "AnEditorThatsAll" as a user name? Why "Authority of Wiki", when, in fact, you have no special authority in this wiki. You should have started this discussion on the discussion page of the article, that's how you are perceived to be a bully. 1Kwords (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name I chose. You asked me a question, I answered it. You asked for Wiki guidelines, I gave you the links. I don't have any special powers on wikipedia, the only power I have is the power to find the Wiki guidelines to show you where your edits went wrong. Actually, this "discussion" on your talkpage doesn't fit the guidelines of a talkpage discussion on a Wikipedia article. There is too much tangential topics of discussion which would be a violation of Wikipedia article talkpage guidelines. Look, I will stop writing on your talkpage with regards to this topic.Authorityofwiki (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we agree that you should get off my talk page and that you have no special authority on this Wikipedia. 1Kwords (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, 1Kwords. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give National Board of Health (Denmark) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: ok thanks I will do that next time. Thanks for the tip. 1Kwords (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You have to have been active on Immigration to Sweden recently. I have suggested that we should do a major reorganization of the article and maybe remove some sections. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about this on the talk page.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the crime section will take some time, but could you fix a graph of the share of immigrants of the Swedish population over time similar to that found in Massutmaning for the history section? I think numbers and proportions are important for getting an understanding of the subject. The book should be either in your shelf or in a public library near you, but the statics should be online somewhere also. Since you already know how to do it.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immunmotbluescreen I can only encourage you to learn doing graphs yourself, just follow the tutorials. The more editors ENWP has who are capable of doing graphs, the better. As you say, numbers and proportions are great for understanding a subject and I can only agree on this. Thanks for considering me but for the foreseeable future I am not able to do the edit you request due to time constraints. Best wishes, 1Kwords (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the statistics and the source for the graph. Should I just do a figure in Excel/Calc graoh and upload it? Is there any rules or color schemes to be aware of? I got really busy, the last couple of days, but I'll make a push on both crime and history in the weekend.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Yes, you can simply take a screenshot of the graph, crop it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Be sure to provide sources to Wikimedia Commons with license. Check the images I have uploaded there under the same username. The other alternative is to draw a graph in a sidebox with wikimarkup, see this example. 1Kwords (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now added the figure on the article, please give feedback. Thank you for the instructions--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, as far as I can tell the source is represented accurately and the graph looks good. I presume you have already looked at the documentation for that chart type? Template:Graph:Chart? There are a few other chart templates as well, for instance Template:Line chart. Find them by clicking the "Categories" at the bottom of the documentation pages and browse around. 1Kwords (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you speak Swedish and keep track of the public debate, could you share your views on the relevance of Sanandaji in this discussion Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Immigration_to_Sweden_(effects_on_crime)_and_Sanandaji--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immunmotbluescreen You may want to write adjust instead of account in the sentence Accounting for things does not make them go away. You wouldn't say that eating a bag of potato chips is healthy if you account for fat, carbohydrates and salt. Eating that bag is still unhealthy. 1Kwords (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Swedish Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve WP:NPOV and updating outdated information on all the various articles about Sweden. Even though you are outnumbered by often unreasonable people you manage to stay calm and focus on improving the articles. After weeks on discussion on Immigration to Sweden, you certainly deserve this barnstar!
		this WikiAward was given to 1Kwords by Immunmotbluescreen (talk) on 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immunmotbluescreen thanks for the recognition. I have the ambition to stay calm in the face of adversity. It is a long process and subject to ongoing improvement. It is the only strategy that so far has yielded results. 1Kwords (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1Kwords,

As you have noticed I came across the graph shown below.

I've pointed out at Talk:Immigration_to_Sweden#Misleading_vertical_axis why this graph is not properly rendered. A percentage graph should always include 0 to maintain correct proportions between the lines. I came here to direct you to [[2]] to help you prevent the mistake to be repeated. However, looking at your contributions I see that you have rendered some graphs correctly, but some not.

Following graphs have the same problem, where misleading vertical axis have been used:

• File:SCB Södertälje taxable income as percentage of national average 1995 2017.png
• File:SCB Landskrona taxable income as percentage of national average 1995-2017.png
• File:SCB Malmo taxable income as percentage of national average 1995 2016.png
• File:SCB Landskrona taxable income as percentage of national average 1995-2017.png

All four of cities are well known to have a large immigration population. The decrease in taxable income as percentage of national average since 1996 is not very large but look huge in the graphs since the 0 has been excluded. Taken together it concerns me that these are the graphs that have been rendered in a misleading way and I have to ask weather this is a coincidence or weather this has been done intentionally.

Best regards, 83.252.117.151 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For accurate, well-sourced, encyclopedic upgrades and improvements to articles in dire need of such. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory thanks a lot, it is nice to know my efforts are appreciated! First award I can add as a ribbon to my user page :-) 1Kwords (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you given any thought to creating an article on blade weapon attacks in Europe and immigrants. Stabbing attacks committed by migrants and asylum seekers. Stabbing attacks on migrants and asylum seekers. Stabbing attacks on politicians motivated by the fact that the politician supports or opposes mass immigration. Interesting article on the last type in Washington Post, here: [3]E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory Any standalone article must pass the WP:GNG and you'll need a few such articles or chapters/sections in reports published by WP:RS to prove notability. As for any standalone article. If you have enough sources, there's nothing to stop you from creating such an article. 1Kwords (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Burgwedel stabbing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Burgwedel stabbing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 that 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller thanks for the warning about the discretionary sanctions, I will steer clear of these topics in the future. My edit on Gender studies was reverted, imho the Vatican are not qualified to criticise GS due to them being inexpert, for instance per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So Vatican comments better belong in Politics of Vatican City article, or some other Vatican-related article. 1Kwords (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your input and help at the following talk pages. Thank you.

[4] [5] [6] [7]

David A (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David A, hi I can only help you with better sources: https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/. It is WP:RS and you should be able to contribute usefully to some of the articles you listed. Happy editing! 1Kwords (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not have the necessary editing competence, at least not with the very limited time that I have available, and might also be topic-banned again if I do that. Thanks anyway in any case. David A (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David A if you don't take the time to do the edits, clearly the edits you are thinking of are not a priority to you. I can't waste time to do unimportant edits either, I'm afraid. All the best, 1Kwords (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that I have basically been forbidden from doing any more direct edits in these areas, and that my past attempts have been clumsy, but I still think that the references contain important information. David A (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: as I wrote above I am not likely to change my mind in the foreseeable future and I must ask you take me seriously on this instead of coming back to ask over and over again.. Which part of that was unclear? 1Kwords (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did accept in my last reply. I just tried to explain myself. David A (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work improving and expanding old articles like 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting. E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, my second Original Barnstar! Thanks E.M.Gregory, it is great to know my efforts are appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immigration and crime in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kosovar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Islam in Sweden seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Specifically this edit. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller, thanks my edit could indeed have been better and thank you for improving the paragraph instead of deleting it outright. I found a source with Swedish Television and added some info from that. All the best, 1Kwords (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added some nuance to your dubious claim about crime rates of Turkish Dutch. Turkish Dutch are less likely to be suspect of crime than native Dutch of similar average income.NeoRetro (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1Kwords, I want to inform you that there has already been a failed move request from Islamic to Islamist in 2017 [8], since there was no consensus. On the day the move was requested a Wikipedian jumped the gun and changed the word Islamic multiple times into Islamist in the article, as well as the article name itself [9]. Some of his changes where reverted but not all (for example the first sentence of the article still is: "This article is about Islamist terrorist attacks and arrests in Europe. For non-Islamist terrorist incidents in Europe, see Terrorism in Europe." Could you have a look into it and change it? Unfortunately I still can't make edits to the article myself. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are good. I went to update the Burgwedel article and saw that you were ahead of me, adding reliably sourced, significant information. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: thanks, it's great to know my efforts are appreciated among fellow editors. 1Kwords (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1Kwords. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1Kwords. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article - Education in Sweden uses a list-defined reference format. When you remove content and references like you did here, you created a cite error visible at the bottom of the references section. When removing content, you must either remove the reference in the reference section too or in the alternative comment it out. I have fixed the error for you. Please use the Show preview button in the future to avoid mistakes like this. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 13:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 13:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 1Kwords! I noticed that you contributed to the article Central European University in the past few days. I have the feeling that an editwar is coming, because user François Robere keeps deleting the government response to the accusations of CEU. Could You please take a look at his two latest edits? Thanks. --5.204.115.190 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have no idea who left this tag, all I did was format so that the tagger's reason actually showed - at least in that way we might know what needed clarification in that editor's opinion. Personally I don't think it's a clarification matter. Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pincrete, I don't think so either - adding information about how those laws were implemented in practice is a matter of extending the article rather than clarification about the laws being implemented. Also, I'd express my preference that this discussion had better been done on the talk page of the article but that is no biggie. All the best, 1Kwords (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honor killing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from here. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi, I rephrased the material in the that it is satisfactory. 1Kwords (talk)

Diannaa So beyond Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words the issue could has another fix: simply add quotation marks. 1Kwords (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to use short quotations where there's no alternative, but for the most part Wikipedia content should be written in our own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I can think of alternatives for the last article I pinged you. Thse sorts of discussions better belong under the talk pages of the respective articles. 1Kwords (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and @Diannaa:. 1Kwords (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder to attribute when you WP:COPYWITHIN as you did here.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make this more clear, removing or altering other users comments is a no no and could well lead to sanctions. There are exceptions, but it is hard to see how this qualifies, care to explain?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven thanks for pointing this out. It was not done intentionally and it is not something I ever intend to make a habit. My apologies. 1Kwords (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all cock up sometimes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are now over the WP:3RR brightline with your undue insertion at Multiculturalism and I am formally asking you to self-revert rather than continuing to edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Participants discussing Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24 have suggested that lists may work better than categories for this sort of topic. A list can also be embedded in an article, see: Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. Articles are not difficult to create.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you know more about list articles than I do, good luck with your list project. In the meantime I have other projects in the pipeline. 1Kwords (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually an an article about Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, with an embedded list. Just fyi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* E.M.Gregory that list in the US article encompasses crimes that pass the WP:GNG, which leads on to the thought I had: a list need selection criteria according to WP:SAL. The GNG applies to articles, not article content and a list article shouldn't restrict every entry in the list to be WP:GNG, a list entry being WP:V (verifiable) through WP:RS is an alternative list inclusion criterion. 1Kwords (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would be valid. And I do think that similar pages could usefully be constructed for several countries, including Germany, Italy and France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the history of your edits to articles discussing Islam, especially Islam in Sweden ([11][12][13]) shows a worrisome pattern that can only be termed as tendentious editing. It appears you are trying to find any sources that discredit particular schools of Islam, irrespective of their quality, and then stick them into Wikipedia articles. See, this is not how encyclopaedic editing works. I agree that some tenets in Salafism, etc., can be, and are, subject to valid criticism. However, what you are doing is simply introducing a WP:POV to articles, based on doubtful quality sources. I strongly suggest you slow down your crusade, because it cannot continue this way. You have already been warned and reverted many times previously. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Murder of Mireille B.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on the Murder of Mireille B. However, other editors have disputed the tone of the article. See the notices at the top of the page. If these issues are not addressed, future editors could call for the article to be deleted.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:1Kwords, I am reaching out to you and several other experienced editors with a history of editing immigration topics. I would like to ask for your help with a new article that I and others have been working on: Draft:Boundless Immigration. I am in a fully disclosed COI position on the article and do not wish to get unduly involved in editing it further or, of course, in the decision about whether it should be moved from draft status to a live article. The draft has an unusual history. As far as I can tell, the editor who declined it in December 2018 (User:JC7V7DC5768) was relatively new to editing and was subsequently blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons. User:Robert McClenon declined the article in April 2018, and has stated in several places that he does not get involved in new article decisions once he has weighed in. The third editor to work on it, User:Libracarol, improved it and was in favor of advancing the article before it was declined by the now-banned editor. But Libracarol has done no editing since February 2019 and has not responded to notes left on his/her talk page. Meanwhile, the article (still in draft form) has nearly 30 solid references, which suggests that the topic is notable. Would you be willing to take a look at it and offer an opinion? Others who declined it did not have extensive immigration article editing histories, and that seems to be an important factor here. Many thanks in advance for considering my request! Messier6 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messier6 Hi, I'm not able to help you but you could pay an editor to contribute their time towards your project. There should be a "paid editors guild" or something of that sort here on enWP. Best wishes, 1Kwords (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Multiculturalism in Germany.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Not related to this redirect being approved, but you may want to consider connecting the content at the target with Multikulti

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immigration and crime in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I know that you have not been willing to help me out earlier, so my apologies for being a bother, but this time it is just a smaller issue, so I hope that you can make an exception.

Anyway, the Media of Sweden article lists statistics from 1999, even though there is a newer version of the survey, by the same researcher, available from 2011. I would very much appreciate if you would be willing to update them, as I am not good at handling such issues, and am extremely busy.

Thanks in advance for any help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_of_Sweden#Updated_statistics_from_2011_instead_of_1999

David A (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David A My time is more valuable than yours, in my own opinion. It seems that you take the diametrically opposite view but I don't agree with you. 1Kwords (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Never mind then. I am working daily 12 hour shifts, and am not good at editing Wikipedia though. David A (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David A Seriously, instead of asking me over and over againd despite me having politely declined on serveral occasions, why don't you pay someone (other than me) to do the edits for you? We're all adults here and you can't expect someone else to do your edits on Wikipedia for you for free just so you can work more and earn money. 1Kwords (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few problems with that.

For one thing, I would have to find somebody suitable online, as I am an autistic shut-in.

For the second, I would have to reveal my real name if I made a Paypal transaction, and given that I have inserted statistics about some controversial topics, that is potentially very dangerous for me.

And for the third, I don't know if that is allowed according to Wikipedia rules, even though I am sure that some of the editors who have inserted slanted propaganda here full work times for years, such as Snoogansnoogans, are likely unofficially paid by prominent political organisations.

Still, I will try to eventually add the statistics on my own. I am mainly worried about making mistakes when the editing is not very basic. David A (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Somalis in Norway#moved from user talk page. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Römosseskolan, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, for some reason I did not manage to find the trial info on the source at first. I apologise for being so trigger-happy with the warning (and making a bit of an arse of myself), and will restore the content. Doanri (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually bothered to look at my edit, and edit reason (abbreviated admittedly) - instead of jumping to a wholly wrong conclusion, you might have realised that I was removing duplicated categories. 'Islamic Terrorism in US' is parent of '… in Florida', ditto mass murder in both.

BTW don't you have anything more constructive to do than stalk me? I've been editing the Orlando page almost since it was created, and have always been clear that it should probably be categorised as BOTH Islamic Terrorism and as 'anti-gay' and possibly as anti-hispanic, though that is more speculative. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left no edit comment. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'parent cats' wasn't a reference to feline breeding! It's abbreviated admittedly, but since the categories removed were immediately below the ones that remained - I assumed others would actually assess the edit before jumping to conclusions. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "motive" tag is deleted in the infobox and the jihadist motive was not in the lead section either. The article could be improved on those points. Nowhere have I disputed an anti-LGBT motive. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you did here where you restored vandalism of a citation.[14] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This content you added/restored looks like anti-black racism to me, and it has been objected to by three users (including me). Does it also not look racist to you? At the very least, including such content would involve presenting it as neutrally. VR _talk 13:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: I’m having similar issues with this user RE racism, check out their additions to identity fraud. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By pure chance, I came across this last night, Suspect in new Charlie Hebdo attack angered by republished cartoons, say Paris police about a recent event in which there appears to be a clear and explicit link to the original attack. The source on the text I removed makes no such connection. Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1Kwords. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Römosseskolan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Gaza Strip is subject to a 1RR and your last edit violates that. Further, you are simply mistaken on policy here. What you are removing is not a rumor or a Wikipedia editor's view, it is a verifiable and sourced projection. Please a. self-revert to correct the 1 revert rule violation, and b. discuss your edit on the tal