User talk:Citadel2811

Citadel2811, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Citadel2811! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom

Hi. Per WP:BRD, I've reverted your addition of the infobox to this article. The appropriate course of action now is not to simply add it back, but to discuss the issue on the article talk page and first get consensus for the change. If you continue to just add the infobox back to the article, then we're into WP:EDITWAR territory, which generally does not end well for anyone. Please, discuss the change on the article talk page first. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your recent editing history at Australia 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Map of Europe 13 July 1945.png

A tag has been placed on File:Map of Europe 13 July 1945.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article template

Hello! Please don't add the Good Article icon to articles that haven't gone through the Good Article nomination process, as you did at Operation Unthinkable. If you believe that that article now satisfies the Good Article criteria, then feel free to nominate it for a review. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Hi,

You keep making edits to the Rhodesia article that are destructive in that they remove information, without explaining why you do this in your edit summaries or on the article's talk page.

I also notice that you have been warned about edit warring on your talk page, so this seems to be a habit of yours.

What is your purpose with respect to the Rhodesia article? I've reverted your most recent edit.

--Craig (t|c) 20:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your insertion to the infobox in American Civil War

Recently you added a large number of entries to the "Commanders and leaders" infobox section. This was reverted by another editor, reinserted by a third editor and reverted again by myself. If you would like to discuss reasons for its inclusion, please comment here: Talk:American Civil War#Massive name insertion in infobox by new editors. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Saudi Arabia, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbols in infoboxes

Please do not add irrelevant symbols into infoboxes of countries, such as the logo of the ruling party or the personal Coat of Arms of its ruler --Havsjö (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Citadel2811! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. El_C 03:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still doing it. What gives? El_C 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And still doing it (even after block). Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union of the Russian People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wehrmacht have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for disruptive editing (including but not limited to marking major edits as minor after multiple warnings). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 08:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor

I see that you are marking almost all your edits as minor. Please see WP:MINOR about when to use the minor marking and when not. --T*U (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Since my message to you here, you have made 16 edits to articles. Of these, 15 are marked as minor. Most of them most certainly are not minor edits as described in WP:MINOR. Curiously, the one not marked as minor is one of the few that actually can be regarded as minor. Seeing that you recently have been blocked with undue minor markings as part of the reason, I am not sure how to interpret this. If it is meant as some kind of joke, the humour is not getting through to me. Please remember that Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. --T*U (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at American Nazi Party. Not only are you persistently marking non minor edits as minor, despite numerous warns and a block, your edits to highly controversial topics like this are poorly sourced, poorly formed and not an improvement. John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Italian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Hansen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I suggest that you stop editing infoboxes, as your judgment about what changes to make seems very poor. I am reversisng your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Disruptive editing: unexplained messing with infoboxes and icons, refusal to communicate or seek talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at American Nazi Party, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)