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.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |