User talk:TheHistorianEditor

September 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Madison, Wisconsin have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Madison, Wisconsin was changed by TheHistorianEditor (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951994 on 2025-09-11T02:24:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added new information. That's all. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Robert M. La Follette 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. Also, some of your edits removed sourced content and broke from Wikipedia's neutral point of view. A couple word switches were npov —eg changing disastrous to divisive, which took out some existing bias—but additions that insert a perspective are not improvements ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 14:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not neutral, it was kind of negative. I admired him, and wanted to fix it. I added true information such as rightfully opposing entry into World War II, and making progressive reforms. I love Wisconsin as much as you love Minnesota, you wouldn't like it somebody wrote something negative about Hubert Humphrey or Paul Wellstone on their Wikipedia page, so please keep this page as is. TheHistorianEditor 16:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TonySt. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1931 in the United States 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. tony 00:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)== Wisconsin ==[reply]

I've visited the state capital, and many places there. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gaylord Nelson. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Gaylord Nelson was changed by TheHistorianEditor (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.925267 on 2025-09-11T02:33:28+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't vandalism. I just added new information. What' wrong? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me ClueBlot NG, tell me what to edit. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot NG, I just didn't know. Can you please help me? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BrandNewSaint. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Pro-slavery ideology in the United States seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This includes articles regarding controversial topics, and as much as you may agree or disagree, for the purposes of an encyclopedia articles must try to remain impartial. BrandNewSaint (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I said that the belief that slavery was good was false. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at California gold rush. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I added true infromation. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with my edit? I added a source. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are hiding your non-neutral removal of California genocide with unrelated additions. Your whole purpose at the article is to reduce the importance of the genocide. This is WP:Tendentious editing which may lead to being blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I added that California was ceded, it attracted many white settlers, immigrants and led to California becoming a state. I got my sources from HISTORY and Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/California-Gold-Rush, and https://www.history.com/articles/gold-rush-of-1849. Yes. It resulted in a horrible event to Indians. I am sorry if I removed very dark information. I just wanted to add more information about the rush in general. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would believe that if you had simply added some information rather than removing the genocide part along with adding more stuff. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's just when I learned of the event in history class. I really loved the event because gold, new towns and new life. Like there I thought was a new adventure heading west and new place to discover. I did not learn of the deaths of many Indians. It's like learning about Columbus in history school and seeing him as a hero. It's just so shocking. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I add information and not remove this event. I am super sorry for removing this. I just got my sources and want to add this to the page. I wasn't trying to hide such an awful event with this. I was so focused on the sources that I put in place, and forgot to tell the truly dark side of the event. I do not deny mass killings, they are horrible, and I regret doing this. It just that they were hidden from the sources I got. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Please respond to me. Can I add the events from the sources without undermining this horrible event? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert all my edits on the history pages? I was trying to add information. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheHistorianEditor! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 20:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But what about the change that you don't like? I never try edit wars. All I want is to improve history sections. And I feel like no one likes my edit when they keep undoing it. I don't think it's nice of them when everyone undoes my edits. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I blocked? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also. I wasn't trying to edit war. I was trying to help fix the page and add more information. But you kept reverting the edits. My edits were valid. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheHistorianEditor. It is important that you please click here to visit the discussion and add your comments. --tony 18:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will I get blocked? They just don't understand me. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am sorry for all this disruption. I really wanted to fix and help Wikipedia. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:22, 1 October 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).

TheHistorianEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize for what have I done. I am not going to deny my wrongdoings. What I did was wrong, I caused a lot of disruption and made many fellow editors upset. There are some pages that I really wanted to edit, fix and expand Wikipedia, but I didn't know how to communicate properly. When I joined Wikipedia, I was really interested into history and focusing on making neutral or accurate pages, and I didn't know much about Wikipedia guidelines when I first began. Now I know the guidelines. Next time, I will go to the talk page, seek consensus, and make sure people agree before I make the edit, in order to prevent edit warring. If not, I will seek dispute resolution. I will take your advice. Deep down, I have good intentions, and I want to make Wikipedia better more understandable and accessible, not to cause edit wars or alienate other editors. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On September 26, you said, "I never try edit wars". Yet you continued edit warring, including up to today. You knew the guidelines perfectly well, having been warned about them over and over and over and over again. Perhaps if you suggested a WP:0RR restriction, that might be convincing. As it stands, though, I don't think it would be a good idea to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 21:48, 1 October 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.

If you decide to make another unblock request, please review WP:GAB. I had to fix your request to get it to show up properly. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Apology

Please. Is there anything I can do to have the block lifted? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just told you. It's deeply concerning that you didn't bother to read my unblock decline. --Yamla (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I forgot I said that. Can you give me advice what to do when I want to edit something, so I don't edit war again. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rewriting of history based on how you wish events had unfolded is a possibly insurmountable obstacle to you being unblocked. Your manipulation and sanitizing of Wikipedia history articles is, longitudinally speaking, even more disruptive than your edit warring. Based on the evidence presented at the 3RR noticeboard, I think a significant break (e.g. at least several months) is needed as a complete turn-about in your mind set is required if there is any hope of you editing effectively.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How long will my ban last for? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already been told, your block is indefinite. Frankly, you are raising very serious concerns around WP:CIR here, in addition to your block. --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean I am blocked forever? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked until such a time as you are able to successfully contest your block. Based on Ponyo's statement above, this will be at least several months. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to shorten my block? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you are deliberately wasting our time. If you continue, you will lose access to your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]