Welcome!
editHello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
December 2024
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Syrian Armed Forces, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Douglas Santana (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Tanf. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nxcrypto Message 12:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
edit Hello, 94.246.147.217. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page King Arthur and the Knights of Justice, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 17:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm unaffiliated.
Please sign your talk page comments
edit 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
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. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
edit Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Avalon, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You've been doing the same stuff for years now--as 5.173.74.161 and as 94.254.152.50, and who knows what other IPs. It needs to stop. I see you actually wrote a few edit summaries, but there are still plenty of other problems: citations come AFTER what they verify, many of your edits aren't grammatical, many are still unverified, some are just excessive (how many Sirs?, and of course the bare URLs, which aren't just unhelpful in their own right but also violate the MOS, since they are a different citation format. If you continue this, you are going to get blocked, and that can happen to every IP you use, with all the edits reverted. You clearly have skills and interests that can help improve these articles, but they have to be done properly in a way that fits a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh dear. Bots or users (I'm not sure, nor I really care) handle filling references automatically or semi-automatically. The references even do fill automatically when using visual editing, but this mode is completely broken as it causes whole blocks of text to disappear (as in it's deleting text), like whenever a paragraph is divided by a new line (it's beyond me how could have been released with such bugs and then never been fixed). If you have problem with what and how is written you can copyedit that, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avalon&diff=1267302085&oldid=1267285758 - I don't know what would be "proper English" here, you claim to know so you can correct it to be supposedly proper instead of deleting. "Sirs" is absolutely correct: https://preply.com/en/question/plural-of-sir Of course "citations come AFTER what they verify", how else?
- "Sirs" is a correct plural. Inserting the word "Sir" two dozen times before those names is useless. I'm not responsible for fixing bugs (I do my citations by hand), but you are responsible for your own copy edits. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Editwarring
edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Holy Grail. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Holy Grail. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You indiscriminately deleted a bunch of new text along with references while saying "overlinking". 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was overlinking in your edits, and again two bare URLs. If something is broken, why continue editing as if it is not? And how could a bot do a complete reference from this, when a page number isn't even given? Drmies (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
If you think something is overlinked, delink it. How hard is that? I thought it was under linked and so I corrected it (it wasn't hard). The page number is 44 actually, I'm going to add it. Also seriously fix the visual editing so it will stop deleting text when it's divided, this is beyond absurd. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Okay, I won't even bother really, actually I even do need a time out. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, so anyway (in case if you come back) it's only happening for I'm being mass batch-reverted in many articles for literally no reason. Just this example here - allegedly a "disruptive series of edits": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mordred&diff=1267304055&oldid=1267296562 This batch revert restored even the corrected grammatical/orthographic errors, in addition to other corrected errors (such as someone else, not even me, pointing out a writer was French and not Belgian, and other people's edits - because everyone was also reverted for no reason too), not to mention all the improvements such as additions (with perfectly good scholarly sources). I don't even know what was possibly any "disruptive" at all, who and what and how was being "disrupted", at all!
The other reverts are similarly just absurd and senseless, a lot of it claimed to be due to bare URLs (instead of adding the "bare URLs" tags, if not just using the refill tool https://refill.toolforge.org to instantly fix all of it within literally few seconds, and yes I do use it myself) or just absolutely bizarre stuff like "an image was removed" when no image was removed, just completely incomprehensible reasons and I don't know why is it happening, I don't understand, because it literally makes no sense, but I think THIS is, literally, disruptive, and obviously incredibly annoying, and just completely dumbfounding, and I want it to stop happening to me and also to stop happening to anyone else is experiencing that. Seriously, stop doing that!
But also in one case some of my edits (Excalibur) were in fact not good, and even factually wrong (which I myself realized after taking another look, it wasn't pointed out to me). But even then that should have been manually removed, not with all the other edits. And so I removed it myself (for a good reason). It's not hard at all! Why are people not doing manual edits like that? I don't know!
Also as I already mentioned actually I'd be using visual editor to instantly insert filled references, and to write more easily, but the editor is bugged out behind repair. I have no idea why it even being given as an option while it causes the text to be deleted by just using it. I'm sure this must be a perfectly known issue for I don't even know how long, and it's just ridiculous.
So after that I'm going to restore this one too and I just hope no one's going give me any more trouble for that. Or else I guess I'll have to go to "dispute resolution " if this will continue after all. But I hope it won't (and to anyone, if this is happening to others too, which it shouldn't).
Quite a rant, but I was frustrated by that.
There was no other "edit warring" taking place. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been edit warring all over the place, and you've been editing in this same disruptive manner for quite a while now. I don't know what Visual Editor does and does not do and I don't really care. I saw your bare URLs maybe a dozen times, maybe more, sometimes days after you put them in. The writer you're talking about, Jean d'Outremeuse, was from Liege. That's in Belgium now, and of course neither France nor Belgium existed as national entities in the 14th century, but calling him "French" is even more of a stretch than calling him "Belgian". "If you think something is overlinked, delink it"--no. See WP:OVERLINK, apply common sense, and if you have been reverted for that, don't do it again for the same terms in the same article.Two more things: you asked what's disruptive about this--well, your talk page proves it. I think this is clear to everyone but you. Second, I understand that you are saying you are going to come back to make the same edits you made before--I am just going to state, for the record, that that will likely lead to the same result, only the block will be longer. If you are going to edit these same articles again, do it in a non-disruptive way--again, looking at the comments from other editors, including in edit summaries, should tell you what that means. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UT
Who, what, when was ever "disrupted"?
It wasn't even my edit about him (you didn't revert only my work), but he was indeed French: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-dOutremeuse
I probably de-link more then I link.
If you care so much about bare URLs so much, keep https://refill.toolforge.org in a tab to fill almost all at almost any page within around 10 seconds or less, instead of disrupting anyone's work for literally no reason at all.
Use tags, where they're needed, like [citation needed], [dubious – discuss], [original research?], copyedit (for any "not proper English"), refimprove, even bare URLs and overlinked are tags, if you can't be bothered to fix what you see as issues by yourself - instead of reverting everything indiscriminately, actually disrupting people's work and yet somehow not seeing yourself as disruptive.
That's all. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
And if you want to do something constructive for a change by reverting a whole bunch of stuff, this is literally not a biography but I guess it might have been once (maybe): Fernando Romeo Lucas García 94.246.147.217 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
And no, I didn't "remove" the tag. I placed it, on the top. I only them removed the one on the bottom, once I noticed it.
Again stop randomly reverting me literally everywhere like some kind of weird hobby. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
And here you have like the citation bot works, completely automatically: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinadan&diff=prev&oldid=1267445772 Look at that. Just few hours later. Literally no needs to do anything at all. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want the Dinadan edits to stick you'll have to explain where "less sensible and sarcastic and more earnest" comes from, and you most certainly need to give page numbers. Because I don't see that he is or becomes more sensible than an earlier version of himself: he's more sensible than Kahedin, says the source. And where is he sarcastic? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
He's sarcastic in the Long Version, and a whole lot (not so much in the Short Version). As mentioned by me, Malory notably toned down that aspect (sarcastic commentaries): https://books.google.com/books?id=oV967qQ0qiEC&pg=PA215 If you have problems with anything, tag things accordingly. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. "tag things accordingly": no. I mean, I can, in which case I would place a huge ORIGINAL RESEARCH tag on top of that page. What I hear you say is that YOU are judging sarcasm etc: it's simply not in the source (Mulo), is it? It's not in Johnson either, as far as I can see--but again, there's no page numbers, so who can tell. There's a comment on Johnson, page 52, that maybe led you to your wording, but it's a stretch. Plus, I don't understand what there is to verify for the Mulo citation in the phrase "The original Short Version of the Prose Tristan, and the beginning of the Prose Tristan in general". I suppose you can say "Work in Progress" there as well--but you've made hundreds of edits to this article since 2020. And "Work in Progress" doesn't mean you can basically quote verbally without using quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok. The deal is this a different Dinadan who both doesn't do much and is pretty bland, and the other versions expanded on Short Version where he's later more important and interesting, while Malory skipped the Short Version Dinadan entirely and has this middle of the road take (maybe due to the PT Version IV influence, I don't know). But I just rewrote it to not dwell on that too much. Actually it's better this way, for other reasons. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
January 2025
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
A cup of tea for you!
edit |
Thank you sincerely for your contributions! :) x RozuRozu • teacups 22:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC) |
- Thanks! 94.246.147.217 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Lancelot—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
edit Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Prose Tristan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
"No reliable sources": Encyclopaedia Britannica and the National Library of France.
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Imwin567. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Guinevere, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Imwin567 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
It's all in the article.
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Golikom (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
It was put in quotation marks that function to mark it as a quote. Also don't call people "AI". 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Elaine (legend), 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 the 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. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 16:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
There was nothing "unconstructive" in changing "The early and even more distinctive German book" to "An early and even more distinctive German romance". Stop randomly reverting me for literally no reason at all. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- my bad--was a bit too hasty in the revert the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 16:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Golikom. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Matter of Britain, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Golikom (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Put [citation needed] marks wherever you feel anything needs a reference (which is going to be trivial because everything I wrote is super basic). And read what I wrote below. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Signing posts
edit Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts (but never when editing articles). 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 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. x RozuRozu • teacups 21:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Edits related to Russo-Ukrainian War
edit | 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 the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |
– macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, but I asked about the specific issue(s). 94.246.147.217 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Do not canvass, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Not really a question, someone review my edits and revert the revert of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Oskar Dirlewanger—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, see #PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Soap made from human corpses, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't remove any contents or templates, I removed a repeated link from the lead. Please read #PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason and stop reverting me randomly under blatantly false reasons. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Oskar Dirlewanger, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
There is been no "vandalizing Wikipedia" there, just Visual Editor glitching out as it often does. I already asked you to stop. Repeatedly. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
edit Hello, I'm RaschenTechner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cinema Rex fire have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
De-overlinking (even the same links related in the same paragraph) is very constructive. See #PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason
editIf you've just reverted me, you were most probably wrong about something. No, really.
I'm getting seriously sick of it of being randomly reverted always for simply no reason at all, or by mistake, or for just idiotic "reasons" (like deciding I'm "AI" somehow, then proclaiming a clearly attributed and referenced quote makes a "copyright violation" because all this somehow didn't make it clear that the text curiously put between quotation marks is, in fact, really a quote). It happened repeatedly just today and all of this was wrong. So go back before leaving me any stupid message and actually look into it, or just stop doing it randomly if you do it randomly (I can't even imagine this as not totally random, why would anyone ever actually do it for any reason). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Funny you should post this here, after I just made some edits to Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, and I see now that you have been editing that extensively, in your usual manner: 47 edits without a single explanation. Rude. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wish you instead told me like "hey thanks for making it less bad" but alas. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Join the club. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wish you instead told me like "hey thanks for making it less bad" but alas. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Bazooka. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
edit Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Bazooka, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Bazooka (and Super Bazooka) is the name of the weapon. It alike "Challenger tank" and not "challenger". 94.246.147.217 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- "bazooka" is a type of weapon, so it is not capitalised, like "tank" is not. "M1 Bazooka" is a specific weapon, like "Challenger 2", so is capitalised. Hope that explains it Timtjtim (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bazooka is the nickname (turned actual name) of the specific weapon, meaning the model/series, NOT type. Specifically: the M1, the M9, and the M20. It's alike wrongly calling any SMGs a "tommygun" (there was such time people were doing it, not anymore) instead of just the M1928 (the Tommygun). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Black knight, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.
Timtjtim (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I noticed that you recently removed content from Propaganda Due without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
edit Hello, I'm WhiteTailedEagle. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Galahad, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 10:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not WhiteTailedEagle. I noticed that you didn't notice I provided a reliable source and then I provided another reliable source too. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you have any questions, don't ask them and instead read #PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Russell Bentley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. tony 18:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Russell Bentley. My edits appear not to constitute vandalism and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Read [[##PSA: Stop reverting me for no good reason / no reason]]. Thank you. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Which text in Rubicon (UAV unit) is copied from that NYT article? --tony 00:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I resolved it already. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. I can't find any copyright violations in the text prior to your edits -- any chance you can point me in the right direction? Here is the version prior to your edits, for reference. tony 00:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War extended confirmed restrictions
editYou've been notified once before regarding edits on subjects related to the Russia-Ukraine war. I've reverted your edits again. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:94.246.147.217, you may be blocked from editing. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Contentious topic alert
edit
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Ymblanter (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- This covers your repeated attempts to move the ZOG article. If they do not stop, I will block your IP. Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which indeed happened, for 6 months given the previous 3-months block. Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)- This is an arbitration enforcement block and is logged as such. Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I never "discussed PIA topics" at all. None of them. Assuming "PIA" has a P for Palestinian and I for Israel. I think I never edited nor discussed anything actually related to this conflict in any way. (Edit: I looked at my edits and I did here: Talk:Hamas baby beheading hoax. Talking about an awkward section name. Which was changed according to my proposal.)
I discussed a Nazi-Jewish conflict topic, where eventually someone reasonable did correct the obvious Wikipedia hoax that I kept pointing out.
After which I did "drop the stick", even most clearly announcing it ("I'm out.").
I even informed you that the issue had been positively resolved (the hoax was corrected).
94.246.147.217 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I had already stopped and announced this (and my concern was proven valid and the issue was resolved according to my request, that is by correcting the obviously falsified content). I guess I'll just make an account after all. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Note that blocks apply to the person, not just the account. You are free to make an account, but must abide by the 6 month block applied here. Or you must successfully contest this block. Yamla (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
94.246.147.217 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note that the IP also edited in Russian-Ukrainian topics despite being warned. (I did not know this when I blocked them).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Not "also" but actually. Note that "I guess I'll just make an account after all." Which is apparently such a huge deal for some reason, despite me editing for months and having a lot more than just 500 edits. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
94.246.147.217 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Yamla I was talking about being so pressured to make an account. That is: if I only made an account even just 1 month ago this entire fabricated "issue" would have never existed (as I also made over 500 edits during this period). This is literally all to it. And again: I had already stopped and announced this (and my concern was proven valid and the issue was resolved according to my request, that is by correcting the obviously falsified content). That's about the "issue" of editing without having had made an account. I am being specifically blocked for not having made an account 1 (2, 3, etc) months ago. I would also appreciate if you counted these 500+ edits (multiple thousands) and confirm me and this absurdity would be instantly over just like that.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. I have replaced this with a WP:CHECKUSER block. Please return to your original account and contest your WP:BAN there. Yamla (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.
IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.
Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
