Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 418024 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36
Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20 User talk:Theofunny/Archive 1 - WikipediaJump to content
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]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by 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 with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
You are very much Confirmed to User:Renamed user b01a528d7f4e225a6c30730b82a79101 and a ton of logged out editing; not all of which is malicious, but you have harassed other editors and generally been an annoyance. I don't intend this as a "don't come back block"; it's more of a "cut it out" type block. If you want to be unblocked, you could commit to editing as an Ip or take a single account restriction; and you should apologize to Sundostund. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did wrong, I ask for forgiveness and I am ashamed of myself especially for personally attacking Sundostund who is a really good member of this community and one of the editors that I was inspired by in my early days. I did not even realize who it was that I personally attacked until now. I wrote that after being severely sleep deprived but that doesn't justify it at all. I have never used an IP to influence any discussion or edit war. What I wrote to him was what someone else attacked me with in real life (it was someone else's view) which makes it even worse. I feel too ashamed to apologize to him rn. If I meant what I said, I wouldn't have made so many edits to improve this encyclopedia. I really hope that the community forgives me. I commit to never editing as an IP. I am not going to edit Wikipedia at all for 6 months in a self-imposed punishment. But please unblock me as all my edits from this account as well as logged out editing, most of which are constructive would otherwise be mass reverted. I have put a lot of effort in cleaning up pages, reading sources and adding content in a neutral way despite whatever my beliefs might be. I will never attack any editor, even a vandal again. Please check the checkuser logs again after 6 months when I ping you, I won't have edited in any other form. Thank you for being so generous. Theofunny (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
If you aren't going to edit for six months, there is no need to remove the block as blocks only prevent editing. If you made edits in violation of your block, it is permitted(but not required) to remove them- that just comes with the territory. They are stored in the edit history and can be restored if needed once you are unblocked. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I have changed my mind and do not wish to take a break for 6 months. I want to take up Admin Moneytrees offer to commit to editing only from this account, never harass any editor again and apologize to the editor involved.
Hello Theofunny, I didn't get your earlier ping so I'm just seeing this now. I'm willing to unblock, but to be clear, this also precludes you from logged out editing; incidental logged out edits are ok, but continuous logged out edits will be seen as a violation of the restriction. Are you ok with that moving forward? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the note from my change to the AIPAC endorsement, you would see that the sources (while reliable) do not support what the wikipedia page is claiming. I apologize if [better source needed] is not the correct edit to make, but a better source really is needed here 2601:155:4200:8D00:BD4B:F7B5:937A:337D (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the text in your Gavin Newsom/Shawn Ryan interview edit is out of sequence, mixed together and generally confusing. I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up. The video has subtitles and a transcript. (That doesn't mean someone else won't come along and revert in the meantime, though.) Cheers Patternbuffered (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or two and I'll do it. Do you want me to include the transcript too? Wouldn't that be copyvio or excessive since I've included the timestamo? Thanks for sharing your concerns. Theofunny (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suggested the subtitles and transcript as an aid to make sure what you put in the article, and in what order, aligns with what was said and when it was said between the timestamps of the video segment. Right now, it does not. Patternbuffered (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if your reply was a poor attempt at humour, but obviously you've done nothing. A summary may not have to perfectly match the timestamps of an interview segment moment-by-moment, but it should be coherent. Yours is disjointed and confusing (see below). Do you think this is a proper response to my (quite gentle and constructive, I thought) feedback?
In July 2025, Newsom said on Shawn Ryan's podcast that after the October 7 attacks, he strongly supported Israel's right to defend itself,
[? Could not find]
calling the events "a terrorist attack by Hamas"
[47:10]
and expressing "deep reverence for the state of Israel and the Israeli people".
[46:55]
Shortly after the attacks, he visited Israel, met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog, and facilitated a California-funded field hospital.
[46:45]
"My family married a lot of Jewish family… I feel always connected to that country", he said.
[47:01]
Newsom also expressed concern for civilians in Gaza, saying: "Jesus, I mean, look at these children… starving. Enough.
[47:15]
All these poor children. When's enough enough?"
[46:35 - invalid quote, patched together from 2 different timestamps]
Acknowledging Israel's security concerns, he urged a shift toward diplomacy: "I pray there'll be an Abraham 2. I pray Saudi deal Israel. I pray that we can begin to negotiate for peace."
[46:02]
Citing the high Palestinian death toll, he warned: "40,000 families… are going to have a point of view" that could impact global security.
[48:10 - where did he suggest that could impact global security?]
Newsom urged restraint from Netanyahu and elements of his coalition "that are rabid on this topic",
[49:17]
calling for "cooler heads to prevail."
[49:10]
He praised the Abraham Accords
[48:33]
and supported continued U.S. diplomacy, calling the moment "an extraordinary opportunity…
[49:00 misquoted "extraordinary moment"]
to get a pathway to peace and do it immediately".
[49:26]
Reflecting on the encounter with Netanyahu "in the bunker", he said Netanyahu's comments made more sense in hindsight, calling his mindset "understandable" but adding,
I wrote that in good faith because the copyeditor somewhat cleaned it up.
How is that misleading? Obviously, I can't add it entire transcript as it is and it needed to be reworded and shortened.
About global security, he mentions safety while travelling and safety while eating in American cafes. Also, he does say that he supports Israel multiple times so the assertion that he supported Israel shouldn't be controversial and he also gives way more detail in his immediate support.
@TheofunnyI added an archive link and a few tweaks to the formatting. Adding bibliographic information is disruptive? Is it really? I don't think so. Also, you should watch you tone when you are speaking to someone. Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith as well as the policy on being civil. Seriously. I added an archive link and that's unacceptable? I feel like that's toxic. So, the little edits that sometimes people can make only because they have a short amount of time or not OK? Can you please print the policy out to me? You know a lot of people quit editing Wikipedia because of toxic behavior and nasty comments like yours. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You removed well-sourced content about the subject’s mother's controversies, and the edit summary you used didn’t really explain what was being taken out. That kind of summary can be misleading, and another editor noticed and reverted the change. I used a standard warning template that addresses misleading summaries, it wasn’t personal.
Now you’re saying my comment was toxic or uncivil, but I’d really encourage you to take a second look at what I wrote. There were no personal attacks, and I’ve tried to stay within Wikipedia’s guidelines, including assuming good faith and being civil. Removing well-sourced information without a clear edit summary or with a misleading reason is something that naturally draws attention from others.
That said, I get it. Sometimes people are short on time or just trying to make small improvements; things can get misinterpreted, and content mistakenly removed. I do appreciate your work here.
Hello Theofunny! Your additions to Josh Gottheimer have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
I agree on the first count that it was copyvio and only tweaked a bit. It was very concise and I couldn't find anything to reword (its not present in the article now because of an editor objecting to it) but I disagree on the latter. The paragraph is significantly reworded and somewhat shortened from the NYT piece, the details are also not mentioned. I am changing the "while publicly" part. Theofunny (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theo, we have some contention with some edits. Please note that "X was one of 46 Democrats who voted this way" is in no way encyclopedic. I could conjure up a hundred different votes, with sources, that could say the same thing. Provide an authentic rationale for including the sentence (which was copy/pasted across several WP articles), as to why the vote is important and why it is relevant to the article subject. Otherwise it's just another vote. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your appropriate edits. Sorry for the spirited disagreements, the edits in question were originally added en masse across 47 congressional BLPs without any context--hence my scrutiny. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good-faith input. I appreciate your perspective and want to clarify that my earlier reverts were not meant as a personal slight. Theofunny (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Angie Craig 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. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 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.
Confirmed to User:Renamed user b01a528d7f4e225a6c30730b82a79101 and a ton of logged out editing; not all of which is malicious, but you have harassed other editors and generally been an annoyance. I don't intend this as a "don't come back block"; it's more of a "cut it out" type block. If you want to be unblocked, you could commit to editing as an Ip or take a single account restriction; and you should apologize to Sundostund. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello Theofunny! Your additions to Josh Gottheimer have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Your edit to Angie Craig 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)