| Revision as of 02:37, 27 February 2023 editGemmaso (talk | contribs)253 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:38, 27 February 2023 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,941 editsm Signing comment by Gemmaso - ""Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | ||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Revision as of 02:38, 27 February 2023
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
"an" before "h"
Hello! I see you're editing 'an's before 'H' words. Just a reminder that if the H is not silent, it is just 'a' not 'an'. Your edits at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for the word "hostage" are in error, because "hostage" has a non-silent consonant. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Leitmotiv: The form of indefinite article is governed by the displayed text, not by the invisible wikilinked text. It's "an FBI...", not "a FBI...". –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Missed that! thanks Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
3rd opinion
With this I notify you that I mentioned our dispute at the "3O". See here for more. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Explain to me on talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Golden_Horde
The 2016 is only a hypothesis and it says " Considering the historical, archaeological, physical anthropological, and molecular archaeological evidence obtained, it seems most likely that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are members of Genghis Khan’s Golden family, including the lineage of bekis, Genghis Khan’s female lineage, and their female successors who controlled Eastern Mongolia in the early Mongolian era instead of guregens of the Ongud clan, or the lineage of khans, Genghis Khan’s male lineage, who married females of the Hongirad clan, including Genghis Khan’s grandmother, mother, chief wife, and some daughters-in-law. "
The author even suggest that it is the female lineage of Genghis Khan that is related to Tavan Tolgoi. Gemmaso (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Your not making any sense to me. You said " Unnecessary edit, study specifically states: "it seems most likely that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are members of Genghis Khan’s Golden family, including the lineage of bekis, Genghis Khan’s female lineage, and their female successors who controlled Eastern Mongolia in the early Mongolian era ***instead of guregens of the Ongud clan***, or the lineage of khans, Genghis Khan’s male lineage, who married females of the Hongirad clan"
How is this unnecessary when the way you edited makes not mention of the Tavan Tolgoi bodies were possibly only maternally related to the female lineage of Genghis Khan family.Gemmaso (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I had replied
Reply back. The way you edited make no mention that the study also claims that it is only maternally related to Genghis Khan, not paternal. You claiming Golden Horde and Golden family R1b being Genghis Khan related? Your basically making a bold claim that the Khans were R1b. Also let me remind you Batu Khan founder of Golden Horde, was suspected by Genghis Khan not to be his child, but of other men when Borte was help captive. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Golden_Horde Gemmaso (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you reply red hair talk page. You reverted the fake source. It says light colered, not red. Since when is it officially confirmed that Odegei Khan have red hair when there isn't a physical description of him with red hair. You used secondary language blog as a source and from Rashid al Din to claim he has red hair but those are unreliable as everyone knows.Gemmaso (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Warning: 3rr rule
Your recent editing history at Red hair 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; read about 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmaso (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)