Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
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.
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.
I did edit some articles related to Armenians such as Hemshinis and Armenians in Syria but I do not remember editing any related to the conflict. Could you clarify? Theofunny (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what it says: Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia.... This is why I suggested contacting an administrator for clarification. Bogazicili (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify that I was not accusing you of anything in this edit and I assumed that the edit was made in bad faith by some IP (the reason why I mentioned vandalism) which I wasn't able to pinpoint since when I last read the article a few months ago, the wording was different. Theofunny (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited an entire book for the sentence you added: However, others have accused McCarthy of exaggerating the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans.[1] Can you provide a page number for this claim? You can respond in article talk page. Thanks. Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits themselves didn't have any problems right so I can add it when I become an XC user? I wasn't really aware of that because I was under the impression that only the conflict related articles cannot be edited and many IPs as well as new users had edits on some of those articles. Theofunny (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iranians in France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranians. 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.)
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theofunny, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the train on that night, ICE towards Frankfurt. There where 50 Special Police Force in the train. They didnt know. And you want to speculate from far away?? Pastelfa (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i noticed the post
I also agree with your thought this editor is so limited in knowledge and is missing most of the part F.e: Bob Dylan is not Turkish but his parents do
I doubt about this editor
Personal attacks like the one here [3] are not helpful. To all who read it, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere in a collaborative project. The project would be improved if you reverted that edit. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upto is not a word. Also, read the entirety of your sources. You cited a reliable source but the source itself didn't give the figure you wrote. In fact, the reliable source you cited said the figure was unreliable (see diff). Yue🌙20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Chinese Communist Party in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. Your edit summary said Easter egg, coatrack.
In Wikipedia an "easter egg" link is where the visible text hides an unexpected link - for example Nita Ambani. There were no such easter eggs in the text you deleted.
In Wikipedia "coatrack articles" are articles that get pay more attention to other connected subjects than they do to the nominal subject of the article. That was not the case either.
@Kowal2701: There's nothing wrong or suspicious per se with someone blanking their user talk page; it perfectly OK to do as long as its done in accordance with WP:BLANKING. Although archiving is better in many ways, a user talk page's page history is itself essentially an archive, and a record of any post made to the page can be found there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, you often see IPs or NOTHERE users blanking warnings so they keep getting the first level ones. Blanking automated messages is okay imo, but blanking discussions about conduct looks like you’re trying to hide it. Would give an example of a talk page that looks authentic but has had warnings blanked, but don’t want to single anyone out Kowal2701 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to see an example of something that's perfectly OK to do in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Blanking of user talk pages is allowed except under certain conditions. The reasons why someone blanks their user talk page doesn't really matter per se. If they're making problematic edits, they'll eventually be dealt with regardless of whether they blank or archive because it's their edits that are the problem. User warnings are just a way of letting others know they might be doing something wrong in the hope they will modify things accordingly; they're not a way for punishing users. If someone is doing things that are so bad that they're getting lots of level-one warnings from different users for doing it, then that person's ship has long sailed and adding higher level warnings isn't going to matter to them; they will need to be dealt with by a Wikipedia administrator. Users aren't required to respond to things people post on their user talk page, but that also doesn't mean they can continue to do as they please just because they choose to ignore what's others have posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC); post edited. -- 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I manually WP:BANREVERTed an edit by a vandalism only IP who made only disruptive edits on alt-right articles in 2022 or 2023 while checking the editing history of such an article. I made a mistake by not checking the talk page discussion and did not link the IP whom I can't find now. I'll be more careful from now on and refrain from using nicknames. Theofunny (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check my editing history; I've made lots of reverts to the contributions of vandalism-only accounts or IPs. I check the page histories of article I view for vandalism and then check the user contributions to revert other edits if the edit was egregiously bad. Theofunny (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you read this rule of wikipedia. 'He's not a libertarian' is just your personal opinion, sources say otherwise. I'm not a fan of this polititan, but I don't express it by editing on this site. And you shouldnt too Oeleau (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'His MP doused a Jewish menorah.' - because of Mentzen he has been suspended in the party. And that other fragment is really not that straight forward, and I made it quite clear in the article:)Oeleau (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source quoted didn't call him libertarian. He has been described as far right by Reuters as well as NotesfromPoland. Also, there was a statement from him there that was never actually said by him and he also didn't call for Polexit. I've let it be far-right to right wing until consensus can be found. Theofunny (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hey! sorry for reverting, but you're wrong sayong there's nothing like that in the source. In the past, Mentzen has called the EU a totalitarian state, campaigned for Poland to leave and proposed legislation introducing "unbreakable marriage". In 2018, he signed a declaration devoting his public and private life to Jesus. I'm on my phone, so I had no other way of quickly adding the 'totalitarian' bit Oeleau (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with your keyboard. Anyways, I mistakenly thought that the IP removed sourced content but then when I read the page the content I again removed was irrelevant, poorly written and poorly sourced. Theofunny (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious 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. Doug Wellertalk17:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump derangement syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Cheung.
all that was added was factual and reliable from the schools own website and all up to date. I'm also almuni of the school. So what were those reverts about? Thank you
Why did you revert all of my edits? I created a new section and made changes to better organize the article. I did not vandalize the article; I rewrote it. Please do not undo it again.
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.
Your recent editing history at Start school later movement 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; read about 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. Mast303 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Civil War (film). 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.
How is this not an improvement? Please explain. The quote is given but left incomplete without the first words, It's mentioned that she captured the pose which was shown after the film ended but not their moments of execution which was focused on in the end of the film, Undid revision 1292707144 by Soetermans
I made this revert asking why it's unhelpful in a constructive way and you gave this warning here in your passive-aggressiveness. I did not revert after the warning. Bad faith behavior coming from a seemingly experienced editor. Theofunny (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not break the 3RR rule consciously and made attempts to resolve it but you seem to have no interest in doing so. Theofunny (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who's engaging in edit warring despite the fact that I acknowledged your accurate point about the word "iconic" and added the content without it. Theofunny (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't kid yourself. You want my honest take, you went through my archives and you decided that you wanted to act like a complain box. Theofunny (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not kidding myself. By my count, you had four revisions on the article. You've got auto-archiving set to five days, and I'm an experienced editor, I will double-check. That looks suspicious. And lo and behold: you have a history of edit warring. So here we are. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK21:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You literally took a 2 simple reverts with an explanation in the summary as a personal affront and you think you're the holier than thou guy here? You're talking about Mast303's warnings here. Did you see what happened and what problematic edits he keeps making? Did you "double-check" his talk page and realise that fact that he has been blocked indefinitely? Theofunny (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, it was dumb for me to think that I could improve the Wikipedia article about an amazing movie that I saw without offending someone unknowingly. Theofunny (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious 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. Bogazicili (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Chinese Communist Party in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. Your edit summary said Easter egg, coatrack.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Start school later movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Your recent editing history at Start school later movement 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; read about 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Civil War (film). 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.