User talk:Taquim

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to David Tutera has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: David Tutera was changed by Taquim (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890403 on 2014-10-04T22:01:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

See WP:3RR. In short, you and the IP both have been edit warring, and could have been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jimmy John's". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm Mendaliv. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because there are no links in your signature. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jimmy John's, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Corky 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a major news story covered by all media outlets regarding a major change to the mission statement of USCIS. Any story with this much coverage in the news is a likely candidate for mention in the organization's Wikipedia entry. I wrote 2 brief, neutral sentences describing the change and added a citation. Without contacting me first you simply delete my edit. I then make an offer to you to reword the edit and add additional sources such as Fox News. You hold firm in your opinion that there should be no mention of this major change whatsoever. When I reverted your deletion I was combating vandalism, not engaging in an edit war. Taquim 20:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Taquim

No, what you're engaging in is an edit war simply because someone disagree with your edits. My disagreement with you is not vandalism (maybe you read up at WP:Vandalism). You need to get a consensus with others weighing in on the matter (maybe WP:RFC?). Until then, it shouldn't be re-added due to a disagreement... that's according to Wikipedia guidelines. Quit your childish games, learn you accept others are not vandalizing when they disagree with you, and discuss. Corky 06:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or perhaps you can stop vandalizing my edit and discuss and get consensus instead.

Well once again, you don't know how Wikipedia works. People like you are reasons why experienced users leave. I've discussed my reason many of times. There's no reason for me to continue dealing with a liberal who can't take no for an answer. Corky 11:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: : If by liberal you mean someone who would never boast about voting for a racist you are correct. My edit of the USCIS page, however was utterly neutral and provides important, encyclopedic information to readers of all political persuasions. Once again, if you'd like to add Fox News as a source to my edit, please do. If you have suggestions regarding how to rewrite the entry and better convey the information I'm open to that as well.

December 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Racial views of Donald Trump, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Paisarepa (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

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 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 the 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.

- MrX 🖋 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kjkj

kjkTaquim (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boycotts

Hey, just wanted to tell you I agreed with you about the Jimmy John's article edits regarding the boycott (I still don't eat there). I know it's an old topic now, but I happened upon it, and felt like I should say I felt your position was absolutely reasonable and they're wrong not to include it.

- An internet passerby. 2604:CA00:12C:21CC:0:0:860:F7FA (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is unfortunate that rich people with a public relations team are able to hide the truth in an effort to burnish their reputation. Taquim (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]