April 2026
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Olympics
Hi, please let it go. These tables are not particularly useful and they duplicate the content already in the infobox and other tables. Tone 19:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- These tables are useful for ordering the timeline of the participation, each of the ex-YUG countries were competing for Yugoslavia, its their own history.
- The info box is not ordered by the timeline, it only shows the countries. Please let me finish editing it properly and don’t interrupt me. Thank you! Mkess300 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, you know what? Never mind, you won… I can add the timeline of the participation only by their own flag and name changes, even though only North Macedonia and Bosnia did it. But about Kosovo it was still a part of Serbia, so I keep it unchanged. Mkess300 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Flag and name changes don’t belong in a so-called timeline of participation. You can just as easily say such things (which have nothing to do with participation) in one sentence of prose. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- No Kosovo is since 2008 an indenpendent Nation not since June 2014 it dosent work this way mate the revert wasnt fine in my opinion. ~2026-25486-17 (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- Kosovo wasn’t recognized by the IOC when it became independent, only in 2014. That’s why Kosovo participated in 2016 for the first time as an independent nation and not in 2008. If the NOC of Kosovo were recognized by the time the nation became independent, then it would start participating earlier.
- Look, I’ve been there before, some edits and reverts are not fair and you have to deal with it. Mkess300 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and actually engage in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics instead of unilaterally introducing changes to the articles. It is not about Wikipedia editors "secretly hating you" or what not. There is no conspiracy to ease you out of Wikipedia.
- Ok, you know what? Never mind, you won… I can add the timeline of the participation only by their own flag and name changes, even though only North Macedonia and Bosnia did it. But about Kosovo it was still a part of Serbia, so I keep it unchanged. Mkess300 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your efforts do not overcome the community's efforts and consensus. Like I have my own proposals that did not push through cause I did not convince the community. Specifically removing the medal table from non-medalling countries for taking up unusable space (which the consensus say its important to keep consistent throught the articles).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- You've been asked at WT:OLY to stop messing with the infoboxes. This is another request to stop. Next stop is ANI and a possible block. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Listen to me Mr. I've worked on the nations at the Olypmics so hard and it makes more sense to me. If you cancel my editing then it pisses me off and I've done it many times to other editors. What's really the reason for canceling my editings? Is it because of my personal behavior? Is it because you don't like my editings or even ME? Because if you continue like that, then I'm not accepted anymore in Wikipedia, and I will hate not only your canceling, but also YOU!! For me you are getting personal and you crossed my borders. Do you want me to stop? unfortunately I won't stop until you stop! Do you want to block me from editing? Fine, I don't care, you won't hear from me anymore and Wikipedia would be better without me because I'm just a bored autistic person who loves to search on Wikipedia and make tables and lists. Mkess300 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nations in the Early Olympic Games
I saw your edit on the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics page, using Serbia’s full name in 1912. Now that means I need to change its name also on the Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo pages. Furthermore, if that’s how you think it should be, then it needs to be applied to other nations for example Germany: it was called the German Empire in its first participations at the Olympics before WW1. Mkess300 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
May 2026
Your recent editing history at India at the Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- I won’t stop until I make sure that the tables of timeline of participation for each splitted or merged nation are there because these are necessary and they’re true facts. I’ve also added a consensus to each one of these. So I’m really asking you and your hating community towards me to stop reverting my edits. These edit wars you see mean that I’m getting offended personally. Mkess300 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Mkess, in a few of your recent edits you say "I've added a consensus to this page", most notably here where you say
There's already a consensus about it
despite definitely not having consensus on your side. You cannot simply say "I have consensus" and leave it at that. Your tone here on your talk page suggests that you don't care what others think about this. - You must discuss these things on the Talk pages. If you are reverted multiple times, it means you do not have consensus, and have to convince the others that your edits are acceptable (not the other way around).
- If you keep this up (in other words, make another edit reverting someone on an Olympics article) you will be blocked for edit warring. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- As a minor note, I do see that you have started some talk page discussions. Just because you started one does not automatically give you first-mover advantage; being reverted on the article itself still means you need to get consensus. If no one is responding to the talk page posts, cross-post to places like WT:OLY with a {{please see}} request to get others to join in. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I do care of what people think, but they always say it's "unnecessary" without giving a proof why it is unnecessary, while I have a proof that it is necessary. It annoys me so much that I need to explain all over again. Even when I start a consensus they ignore me, and that makes me even more upset. Mkess300 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- "Necessary" and "unnecessary", when it comes to content on a website on the internet, is highly subjective. This is why the consensus model exists. So far you do not have consensus, regardless of "why" people do not want those tables on the articles, you appear to be the only one that wants them. For better or worse, it means that until you can convince people your content is worth having, you need to accept that you are not "right". That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, of course, but you do need to go with the majority opinion. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I do care of what people think, but they always say it's "unnecessary" without giving a proof why it is unnecessary, while I have a proof that it is necessary. It annoys me so much that I need to explain all over again. Even when I start a consensus they ignore me, and that makes me even more upset. Mkess300 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- As a minor note, I do see that you have started some talk page discussions. Just because you started one does not automatically give you first-mover advantage; being reverted on the article itself still means you need to get consensus. If no one is responding to the talk page posts, cross-post to places like WT:OLY with a {{please see}} request to get others to join in. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Mkess, in a few of your recent edits you say "I've added a consensus to this page", most notably here where you say
China at the Olympics
Hello, Dear Mkess300. I genuinely can't understand your edit to this table. As is well known, the Olympics themselves retain a large amount of footage and documentary material, and all of the current information can be verified, whether current or historical. Which part exactly do you disagree with? Mayo Crim (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do not accept your accusation that "The table doesn't look even and lacks specific information." As is well known, I did not change the structure of the table, nor did I alter the amount of information included. Mayo Crim (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Then let me tell you that you did change the structure of the table, it look uneven and the one flag (Republic of China as "Formosa" and "Taiwan") which splits into 4 sub-rows, in my opinion these sub-rows should not be in the table, also in 1956 the country code for the Republic of China as "Formosa" was RCF just like in 1960 which happened after and not CHN because this code was used for People's Republic of China (or China shortly) from Winter 1980. Mkess300 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- In fact, this structure was not created by me, but by previous editors. The use of a single flag (which was also the previous format) is simply because the flag itself did not change. In addition, "CHN" is just an abbreviation for "China" and had already been in use before 1948; it was not something that "only started in 1980." We can look into the sources together if needed. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well not exactly. The country code which was used for the Republic of China until 1948 was ROC formally before the communist revolution occurred. Mkess300 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- The information may be incorrect. As is well known, before 1949, there was no issue of "who represented China", in the Olympic Games, it would simply have been "China". This information has existed in the article for a long time and was not added by me. If you wish to change it, you should provide evidence for doing so. As for official names, every country has an official name. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well not exactly. The country code which was used for the Republic of China until 1948 was ROC formally before the communist revolution occurred. Mkess300 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- In fact, this structure was not created by me, but by previous editors. The use of a single flag (which was also the previous format) is simply because the flag itself did not change. In addition, "CHN" is just an abbreviation for "China" and had already been in use before 1948; it was not something that "only started in 1980." We can look into the sources together if needed. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also, adding colspans to the table makes it looking more uneven, that's why I deleted the colspans because they are irrelevant. Mkess300 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do not have any major objections to the table structure, because I merely edited it at some point; I was not the one who originally established it. This article has already existed for many years. I would appreciate it if you could clarify your differing views regarding the information itself. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think that my structure looks better and less confusing, and doesn't include the sub-rows. For example: why colspan=3 for Mainland China and colspan=5 for Taiwan? The name of China until 1948 was "Republic of China" not "just China". Also the full name of China (People's Republic) doesn't need to be included because this is the one we shortly call "just China". Mkess300 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- You have completely confused me at this point, are you supposed to list the official names or not? I just used the names that were used in the Olympic Games. That is also the purpose of this table. Nothing more. I do not see any issue with that. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I use the names that appear in the main titles: Republic of China at the Olympics, China at the Olympics and Chinese Taipei at the Olympics so that it won't be confusing. Mkess300 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- The names used in the Olympic Games are unique and standardized, just like the "Republic of Korea" rather than "South Korea or Korea". In other lists, using common names may be acceptable. However, this table specifically focuses on changes in names, so the names used in the Olympic Games should be written exactly as they were used. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is a rigorous table specifically about "name changes". There is really nothing to be confused about. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- OK, so I won't change the names, just the table structure. Mkess300 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I acknowledge your contributions to Olympic related articles, but you really do not seem to have studied Chinese history very deeply... Mayo Crim (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I can confess that it's true, and I will search and learn more about it when I find time. Mkess300 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, regarding the name used at the 1956 Olympic Games, I found this image online. As for the code, Chinese-language sources indicate that "CHN" continued to be used, which also seems more reasonable given that both sides were still contesting the representation of "China" at the time. https://megapx-assets.dcard.tw/images/4c84004e-c20d-4f0b-8534-56a56d2ec27d/640.webp Mayo Crim (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, the original structure was quite good. The formatting at the beginning was intended to ensure that the word "China" appeared between the two flags, and from how it looks on my computer, having "People's Republic<br>of China" split across two lines is also more visually balanced. As for names such as "Republic of China" and "ROC", these only became widely used after 1949, when two governments both claiming to be "China" existed simultaneously. Before that, there was no need to emphasize which "China" was being referred to.(Because there was only one) Mayo Crim (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Sir, I would also ask that, when making edits, you provide evidence,at the very least images, official records, or similar sources, rather than simply saying "I think". Moreover, your new table structure is clearly not as good as the original one. Mayo Crim (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- If there is nothing wrong with it, then there is no need to keep trying to replace it with your own version. Also, if you can provide reliable sources, I would not mind adopting your version, and I would apologize to you as well. Mayo Crim (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Do you realize that before 1960, the Republic of China's Olympic committee was called the "Chinese Olympic Committee, National Amateur Athletic Federation"? How could it possibly have used a code like "ROC" under those circumstances? In 1959, under Soviet Union influence, the IOC no longer allowed the Republic of China's Olympic committee to represent China, so the name was changed to the "Republic of China Olympic Committee". If you genuinely do not understand this, then please be a bit more humble.I would greatly appreciate it. Mayo Crim (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- PLEASE do not start an edit war with me. This timeline table of participation has nothing to do with the committee itself but the country name and code that were used during the Olympic games. Also my structure of the table looks better than the previous one and looks more even in a way there are not too many columns and rows. Mkess300 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also if you really think that the previous structure looks better, you are invited to make a consensus on WT:OLY thanks to Primefac who taught me about making a consesus and preventing blocking from Wikipedia. Mkess300 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do not want to engage in an edit war with you. The issue is that you are making changes to a list that did not originally have any problems. This table is specifically intended to show the names and codes that were actually used during different Olympic Games, and those names and codes are closely connected to the historical status and recognition of the committee at the time. Therefore, I believe your current interpretation is historically problematic.
- As for the table structure, the upper section in your revised version is visibly uneven. The original formatting was designed so that the name would appear between the two flags. Also if the name below is not broken into separate lines, the overall appearance also becomes rather awkward.
- If the original content and formatting do not have any clear problems, then there is no need to keep changing them. To put it bluntly, your revision is neither historically accurate nor visually better. If you disagree with me, then please provide evidence and prove me wrong. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I saw this is not the first time you have approached editing in this manner. You really should reconsider that attitude, Wikipedia is not owned by any one editor, and things are not decided simply according to personal preference. As I have already said, if you can actually demonstrate that the existing content is incorrect with reliable evidence, nobody will stop you from making changes. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Since the beginning of this discussion, you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your changes. If you admit that you are not familiar with this topic, then please be more humble and do not edit out of emotion. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- As I said previously, I don't have time to do it since I'm busy with work and my living. When I do find time then I can try finding an evidence. Mkess300 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Most of the edits were not originally created by me in the first place. Please do not take this discussion personally, you are not somehow "losing" to me here. I have already provided an image as evidence. What further evidence are you asking for? If you disagree with it, then please provide a counterexample first. which part Mayo Crim (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- As I said previously, I don't have time to do it since I'm busy with work and my living. When I do find time then I can try finding an evidence. Mkess300 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Since the beginning of this discussion, you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your changes. If you admit that you are not familiar with this topic, then please be more humble and do not edit out of emotion. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- On the computer the table looks pretty good, and also on mobile devices. Mkess300 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Providing evidence would strengthen your position, because Wikipedia is ultimately based on facts and verifiability. I am more than willing to listen to your views and arguments, but claims cannot simply be made without evidence. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- As for the table structure, I have already explained. First, in the original version, the name was positioned between the two flags, whereas your edit leaves the first five-colored flag without a corresponding name. Second, the Taiwan side on the right clearly has a much shorter name, so having the left side split into two lines actually creates a more balanced appearance. Keeping it all on one line looks visually awkward. Finally, this table was not created by me. It has already existed in this article for several years in essentially the format. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I saw this is not the first time you have approached editing in this manner. You really should reconsider that attitude, Wikipedia is not owned by any one editor, and things are not decided simply according to personal preference. As I have already said, if you can actually demonstrate that the existing content is incorrect with reliable evidence, nobody will stop you from making changes. Mayo Crim (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also if you really think that the previous structure looks better, you are invited to make a consensus on WT:OLY thanks to Primefac who taught me about making a consesus and preventing blocking from Wikipedia. Mkess300 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- If there is nothing wrong with it, then there is no need to keep trying to replace it with your own version. Also, if you can provide reliable sources, I would not mind adopting your version, and I would apologize to you as well. Mayo Crim (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Sir, I would also ask that, when making edits, you provide evidence,at the very least images, official records, or similar sources, rather than simply saying "I think". Moreover, your new table structure is clearly not as good as the original one. Mayo Crim (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, the original structure was quite good. The formatting at the beginning was intended to ensure that the word "China" appeared between the two flags, and from how it looks on my computer, having "People's Republic<br>of China" split across two lines is also more visually balanced. As for names such as "Republic of China" and "ROC", these only became widely used after 1949, when two governments both claiming to be "China" existed simultaneously. Before that, there was no need to emphasize which "China" was being referred to.(Because there was only one) Mayo Crim (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, regarding the name used at the 1956 Olympic Games, I found this image online. As for the code, Chinese-language sources indicate that "CHN" continued to be used, which also seems more reasonable given that both sides were still contesting the representation of "China" at the time. https://megapx-assets.dcard.tw/images/4c84004e-c20d-4f0b-8534-56a56d2ec27d/640.webp Mayo Crim (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- I can confess that it's true, and I will search and learn more about it when I find time. Mkess300 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is a rigorous table specifically about "name changes". There is really nothing to be confused about. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- You have completely confused me at this point, are you supposed to list the official names or not? I just used the names that were used in the Olympic Games. That is also the purpose of this table. Nothing more. I do not see any issue with that. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think that my structure looks better and less confusing, and doesn't include the sub-rows. For example: why colspan=3 for Mainland China and colspan=5 for Taiwan? The name of China until 1948 was "Republic of China" not "just China". Also the full name of China (People's Republic) doesn't need to be included because this is the one we shortly call "just China". Mkess300 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do not have any major objections to the table structure, because I merely edited it at some point; I was not the one who originally established it. This article has already existed for many years. I would appreciate it if you could clarify your differing views regarding the information itself. Mayo Crim (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Then let me tell you that you did change the structure of the table, it look uneven and the one flag (Republic of China as "Formosa" and "Taiwan") which splits into 4 sub-rows, in my opinion these sub-rows should not be in the table, also in 1956 the country code for the Republic of China as "Formosa" was RCF just like in 1960 which happened after and not CHN because this code was used for People's Republic of China (or China shortly) from Winter 1980. Mkess300 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)