User talk:Kaotao

Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

So, I noticed that you removed some sourced content without a proper edit summary, could you tell me about the reasons for its removal? Meanwhile, I've added it back. Theofunny (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theofunny Totally irrelevant and unnecessary bloat. That article has enough of it already. Kaotao (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theofunny Just noticed the bottom edit, you were right to fix that. Kaotao (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024–2025 proposals for Canadian annexation to the United States, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024–2025 proposals for Canadian annexation to the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Lishogi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved this back into the draft space, as there is no evidence that the subject is notable. We need to see 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. None of the ones cited here does that. Please add more and better sources, and when you've done that, you can submit this for pre-publication review through the AfC process. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple article space stubs with only primary source citations. Lishogi already has a lengthy Japanese article, so I believe it exceeds those stubs in notability. Kaotao (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheating in online chess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zoom. 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) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR issues aside, Israel does not presently meet the A-class requirements to my eye: the easiest indication of that is there are outstanding maintenance tags (e.g. the {{better source needed}} tag in the § Language section).

In general, A-class is not determined by a single editor on a whim, and at a bare minimum I would consider becoming familiar with the less stringent Good article process beforehand. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 00:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-class? At least? It's good stuff, as previously stated. Kaotao (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: I personally only rate articles stub, start, or C. I leave higher ratings such as B, GA, A, and FA to WikiProjects and the respective processes, because those ratings often have extra criteria. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for B-class seem deliberately lenient, though. It's looks like the "it's getting there" rank. Kaotao (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary at [1] was a red flag for the type of editor that is usually quite problematic, and caused me to check your edit history. But now that I've figured out it's a joke, I definitely laughed a bit. Nice one :) On-wiki can be a bit serious sometimes... have you considered joining us on WP:DISCORD? Your sense of humor should be well appreciated there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't have Discord. Thank you for your service! Kaotao (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, i loved that one too. - avxktty ^(talk) 17:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"which it could then deprive from the United States" -- this doesn't make sense. What did you have in mind here? What does the source say? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett You're right, it doesn't. That was thoughtless of me. Kaotao (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaotao I replied to a thread you created on Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States and would like your opinion to my proposal. Knowledgework69 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are defined as uncontroversial edits, such as fixing typos, or reverting obvious vandalism. Please don't mark edits as minor if they change content. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. Kaotao (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. This edit summary is obviously incorrect. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation for deleting two point five kilobytes of content was "soibangla, I believe you are correct and have removed what seemed like a very cherry-picked and not very neutral collection of data to me." and, "selected set of facts, not neutrally written, cherrypicking of data--in an article on Trump". I do not see any examples. Most of soibangla's concerns, in the existent discussion we were having, were already addressed in the section you deleted. Kaotao (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]