Please stop following me around and undoing my edits. You have done this respectively and without showing good reason, such as when I changed the page for Downfall to correct a mistake. The mistake was genuine- Hitler spoke with a Bavarian accent, not a standard Austrian one, as he grew up in Bavaria from the age of three. His accent was thus very distinctive, as many Germans struggle to comprehend Bavarian even today. The point is, mate, you're a newcomer, and you should learn to respect the changes people like I make, as it's purely out of concern that something is incorrect or needs additional information.-- 222.153.41.39 ( talk) 11:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Antique Rose. An edit that you recently made to John Lennon seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Antique Rose 07:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at John Lennon 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:
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. Zippy ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Unbh reported by User:Zippybonzo (Result: ). Thank you. Zippy ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)...because it occurred to me that most people who are creating/expanding articles mean maize when they write corn. Your redirect caused a little over 700 pages to have disambiguation links on them. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Your edits on hospitality exchange networks, and even on Hobby horse (toy), since I created Hobby horsing, are creepy! This is intimidating!-- Geysirhead ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:
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. Eastfarthingan ( talk) 18:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
About this edit: Please remember that all stub tags go at the bottom, not the top, of the article - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. Pam D 12:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Space Force Commander indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
When will you start actually contributing to them? You're just deleting other people's work because of your personal opinions so far. If you think the heading is not good enough write a better one then. GustavoCza ( talk) 18:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That was like, one sentence. Multiple articles mention where an artist studied during their early years and you removed that too. GustavoCza ( talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
And as I mentioned, if you want to contribute so badly then why don't you write more? A 4-line lead is not good, some stub class articles have longer leads, just think about it. GustavoCza ( talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
"In such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". The article has an early years section, how does deleting the formative years of a person's lead makes it better? GustavoCza ( talk) 18:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
You deleted the part on Jonny's style too. How is that not important for the lead? He is literally an artist. GustavoCza ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
And how come the styles that influenced Guy's bass playing not relevant? Coldplay even made R&B-infused songs because of him. GustavoCza ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be an informative summary of what the article says. You haven't answered me: how removing everything is informative? GustavoCza ( talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
You are not removing just that. Stop playing dumb. GustavoCza ( talk) 11:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lambda 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 your 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. Volten001 talk 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassment. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Harassment. Thank you. Baronet13 ( talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
You're obsessed with deleting every single thing I do instead of contributing to the article. If the lead is supposed to hold on its own as a short version of the article how come a bit of their early years and artistry can't be included? What am I supposed to talk about then? -- GustavoCza ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Unbh. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert either of these articles again in the next month without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Unbh! There is nothing to get consensus about as I did basic things that already exist on the page. I believe you haven't properly checked my edits before reverting them so quickly. Let me detail:
Second, I updated the organization's address as it is found on their official website:
Hindu American Foundation 910 Seventeenth Street NW, Suite 315 Washington, DC 20006
The organization describes itself as a human rights and advocacy group, providing "a voice for the 2 million strong Hindu American community", that aims to educate the government and the public about Hinduism and the issues concerning the Hindus globally. It emphasizes the "Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism."[8]
So, it is not understood what sources your are talking about. I updated the Infobox and rebalanced the Summary from the text below. Please, take a closer look before your revert my edits again. -- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C ( talk) 06:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@ 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C: Please take this discussion to the article talk page. Unbh ( talk) 07:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Take your proposals to the talk page. I have been doing things by the book and, compared to your record, I have never had a ban or been seriously censured by the Wikipedia community. I am entirely happy for the dispute to go to exhaustive formal arbitration, if we cannot come to a mutual agreement. ; Urselius ( talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources I added had direct confirmation from the developer of the game, Dan Paladin, supporting that Crockett is listed in it, if that means anything. Bmags16 ( talk) 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough Bmags16 ( talk) 21:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Moving notice to bottom. Viewer719 Talk!/ Contribs! 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 12:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have collapsed the part of the talk page that distracted from the productive discussion of the article text. Please rejoin that discussion and reach consensus with the other editors in good faith. (If you choose not to continue with that discussion, the other editors can assume that your silence equals agreement.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
How is "[...] being the youngest [...]" grammatically incorrect on Berryman's page? -- GustavoCza ( talk) 22:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:UKNATIONALS, it asks us to consider any established consensus. There isn't any on the talk page.
WP:UKNATIONALS also says to consider the reasons why a particular denotion is listed. Given that Henderson has a Scottish grandfather (as seen
here), it makes sense to use British over English. The guidance even says An editor may query you, or revert your choice—so be prepared to explain your decision
which is exactly what you did but you did not provide a reason why other than pointing to
WP:UKNATIONALS which doesn't actually support your reversion as you failed to provide a reason why English should be used over British. Rather than revert back, a discussion should be started on the talk page. ≫
Lil-Unique1 -{
Talk }- 08:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Before the long editions of recent months the article and its narration made little to few sense at all with much of the information clearly improvised and irrelevant. Most of the sources cited apart from the last two include text, phrases and information directly borrowed from said sources.
How can the article acquire more negative watermarks when the narration and previous version of said article was much less elaborated and little revised? The review of the sources provided before the last two additions and their information should be thoroughly reviewed before any sudden changes. The reasons were very vague and with a certain lack of criteria by not taking these parameters into account before adding the watermark. Pablo1355 ( talk) 02:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
FreundTech ( talk) 12:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources for the debunking? I referenced sources from Summer of 2021, I doubt that has been debunked. There are literally hundreds of other sources and studies that show the same results as well.
How about you edit in areas where you actually have a few clues what you're talking about? MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
BTW, please stop working your way through infoboxes enforcing an aspect of the MOS that doesn't have a strong consensus. This sort of editing behaviour causes friction and is generally unhelpful. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Unbh! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Operation Storm several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Operation Storm, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you please tell me where in the source you are posting does Skender Gashi mention the city of Struga and its relation to the term shtrunge, and since you told me to participate in the discussion on the talk page can you tell me where you have replied to my posts or anyone for that matter since from what I can tell nobody is replying to mine and two other editors posts about how none of the sources used mention Struga at all. Also can you tell me why the Wikipedia page cannot use both sources and both claims for the average trader to know both sides?
Thanks GoofyMF ( talk) 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Battle of Vukovar has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. 93.136.75.98 ( talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus for that, read here [ [1]] . Don't do edit war you've already broken it three-revert rule. 93.136.75.98 ( talk) 18:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Flexman ( talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dates of rank, assignments, awards and decorations on military articles violating WP:NOTCV for a discussion relating to your recent blanket removals of promotion and award content from military biographies. Ljleppan ( talk) 07:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Doug Weller talk 11:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dates of rank, assignments, awards and decorations on military articles violating WP:NOTCV for a discussion relating to your recent blanket removals of promotion and award content from military biographies. Ljleppan ( talk) 07:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evilfreethinker ( talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Do not post at that user's talk again unless for a required notification. It does not matter who is right or wrong, you are obviously unwelcome and repeated violations of WP:DTTR looks like trolling regardless of intention. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Political prisonership controversies has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on BeWelcome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 TT me 10:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on BeWelcome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John B123 ( talk) 21:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:Royal houses of Britain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)