User talk:PCC556

Early history of video games

Hi, it may not have been your intent, but edits such as deleting most of the lead of an article or adding content with the incorrect summary "fixed typos" are considered vandalism, and continuing to do so may result in you being blocked from editing.

It appears that you want to expand the presence of the Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device on that article, however, note that your additions appear to be both duplicative of what's already in the article as well as copied directly from the CTRAD article. Please pay attention to what is already there, and also consider that the Early history of video games article is a summary of over 20 years of video game history, so there's a limit to how much space we should give to any one element. --PresN 15:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm Subariba. I noticed that you recently removed content 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. Subariba (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a mistake, i clicked edit accidently before i could add the summary. Now i've removed the content again but i've explained and justified the changes PCC556 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Squinch

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Squinch, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Caravel

Hi, I think you need to take a look at your recent edits on Caravel and consider how they fit with the general principles of editing in Wikipedia.

(1) You have removed two authoritative sources from the paragraph. There is no "competition" here between competing sources, so removing two in making your edits is not really acceptable. If there are differing opinions out there, it is often appropriate to explain what they are.

(2) The source you have added is a dissertation. Have you considered how this fits with the guidance on using a dissertation that you can find at WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Is this thesis cited by anyone else? You might find reading all of WP:RS helpful.

(3) The second sentence of your added text really does need a rewrite. I suggest it would be better if it were broken down into, perhaps, three sentences. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Arabesque

Don't add great slabs of quote without explaining that they are quotes! Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Arabesque. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 17:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Pankou (fastening)

Please see the comments at Talk:Frog (fastening), re your recent major change to that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I eliminated the links to european frog clousures becayse they are not actually Chinese in origin: all historical Chinese pankou used thin cording or wires covered by a smooth fabric, not textured braids and their patterns are densely stitched/knotted together instead of the loose, dramatic shape frog closures have. European frogs are made in Soutache embroidery which already appears in the 1556 German textile pattern book "New Modelbüch allen Nägerin u. Sydenstickern" and were later popularized by hungarians. This article by chinese fashion historian explains this really well:https://audreydoeskaren.tumblr.com/post/650175047438319616/some-thoughts-on-chinese-pankoufrog PCC556 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You've just repeated the same edit, with the same problem. Please see WP:EDITWAR.

You are probably right about the content (it's not a topic I'm particularly familiar with), but this edit still has the same problem: you've taken all the content about frogs out of the article on frogs. If you want an article at pankou, then great, make one. Maybe even the one you've done. But you can't leave it like that: we need to keep some European content left under frog, not just a redirect to a now-unrelated article which you're saying yourself isn't relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello PCC556! Your additions to Goldwork (embroidery) 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:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• 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.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
• 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.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ctesibius

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Odo of Metz.
Message added 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Odo of Metz.
Message added 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your latest reversion of sourced material

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Justacorps, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You stated without evidence "they deleted the most common accepted origin of justacourps that was backed with multiple references" in entirely reverting my edit. There were multiple improvements made to the article which you undid, not just the alleged origin of the garments.

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Justacorps § "Most common accepted origin" and Possible copyright violation. Please respond there before restoring your changes again. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your revisions consistently disregard the extensively documented origins of the justacorps within the European military, widely accepted by fashion historians and which i backed with multiple sources written by fashion historians. Instead, you favor speculative origins rooted in various other cultures, drawing on fringe sources unrelated to fashion history that lack the expertise of fashion historians. Consequently, the edited article leaves readers with no clear understanding of the justacorps' origins, as it simultaneously attributes its derivation to Persian, Polish, and Indian garments contradicting itself PCC556 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope you do not mind, but I have moved your reply to me to the relevant section, here, instead of under the Odo of Metz section.

I do not think my restorations of earlier versions of the article (with both content and WP: MOS improvements) does "disregard the origin" of the garment within the French military. (I even added a section for this, "Military attire", which I had hoped would be expanded.)

There is no claim, either in earlier versions of the article nor in my edits, that "attributes its derivation to Persian, Polish, and Indian garments" as you assert. Readers are presented with the worldwide context of the evolution of the garment, which recent changes also present in a more explicit way. All claims were sourced.

It is not only me who has questioned your changes, as I detail at Talk:Justacorps § Add balancing material, don't delete (and at Seeming copyvio & Most common accepted origin). I seem to be talking to myself. The posts there are open and waiting for you to engage with, for us to reach a consensus on the content of the article, as WP policy requires. Although until now you have not been willing to talk with me, except through edit summaries, I have attempted to take your expressed concerns into account in my edits. On the other hand, you have reverted all improvements: deleting newly added sources, source links and expansions, and formatting and style upgrades.

Most importantly, I removed the copyright violation that you have added several times. This must be rectified straight away. The close paraphrasing to which you have now altered it does not change that (please read WP:CLOP and the section above posted by @Diannaa: in May). If you are unable or unwilling to remove the copyright violation, I will take the action myself by tomorrow. If you keep returning it, without deigning to participate in a discussion, I will feel justified in asking for assistance in the appropriate WP forum. I am willing to discuss the issues in the article. Will you please join me, rather than deciding unilaterally what the "correct" version is, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Close paraphrasing

Your addition to Justacorps has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/1998-n55-cd1043339/7918ac/, a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases, especially if they are not attributed to their source, may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you wish to discuss concerns you have with the article, please do not respond here, but post at Talk:Justacorps as that is where we should continue any content discussion. I would be more than happy to talk it over with you. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please join discussion on talk page

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Odo of Metz, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that.

Your contention that: "There's no evidence Eudes was of armenian origin aside of an inscription that has not been found and appears to be an invention of an armenian historian" in your ES (here) is not a valid reason. (Your beleief that there is "no evidence" is not sourced.) You need to gain consensus by responding to discussion on the talk page (Talk:Odo of Metz#Lead change), as already requested of you in July.

By the way, have you read the source you first added (which I formatted and that you have now un-formatted(!)?: It contradicts some of the contentions you make. Whatever the case, please, per Wikipedia policy, respond on the talk page (not here) before restoring your preferred version. I'd be happy to work towards a consensus and we can also ask other editors for their views. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

References

August 2024

Hello, I'm AukusRuckus. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Cowboy hat in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary said, "Fixed citation problem", but you also inserted this phrase "... and in the Greek petasos two millennia before that", as shown here.

As a substantive change to the article, it would be better if you mentioned in the summary any addition of information like this. Especially so in this case, as the cite you fixed (thanks for that!) – to which you added your text to be referenced by – says nothing about Greeks or petasos.

I have moved your new claim into a separate note (as it's in a slightly different category to cowboy hats and sombreros) and since it was unsourced, found a reference for it: Sacks (2005). (I also made other changes to the article, like ref improvements to existing sources.) Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reinsertion of above-discussed edit

Your recent Bold edit, revision 1242169409, at Cowboy hat was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, mongolian medieval hats weren't high crowned either as shown by these preserves medieval mongolian hats: https://pin.it/5mUjXu8hu, https://pin.it/2EwjohwZx

So it makes no sense to eliminate the reference to the greek petasos just because the petasos weren't high crowned 46.6.141.248 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The petasos weren't eliminated, just moved elsewhere on the page. It reads better and is easier to understand. The classic Mongol hat was conical. Even your Pinterest pictures appear to have a moderately high crown. Please open a discussion on the article talk page, so that any interested editor can also comment on discussion. (That's what we're supposed to do on WP, and so far you have not responded to anything I've posted on any article Talk page, even where I've pinged you.) AukusRuckus (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The clasical mongol hat wasn't conical nor high crown, my pictures clearly show a low crown oval hat PCC556 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Just compare the petasos https://pin.it/6xQ47xWYP with medieval mongol hat https://es.pinterest.com/pin/60446819970140347/ and they have about the same crown height PCC556 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Cowboy hat, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of what should or shouldn't be included in that paragraph, can you please stop deleting valid sources? Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Cowboy hat talk

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Cowboy hat.
Message added 06:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See also Talk:Cowboy hat § Version comparison. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of article talk pages

There are discussions I pinged you to on two different article talk pages:

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Shoe.
Message added 08:32, 24 August 2024. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and

Hello, PCC556. You have new messages at Talk:Chopine.
Message added 08:35, 24 August 2024. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

at which I've been hoping for a reply since 24 Aug 2024. Could you please do me the courtesy of responding there? Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Eudes of Metz again

Please stop. 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 Odo of Metz, you may be blocked from editing.

Changing one claim to a completely different one is not "Add[ing] more context to his armenian origin" as you say in your edit summary here, so is not a valid reason. It is:

• not an accurate statement of the change you made; and
• ignores the existing sources supporting the statement you removed

That is, changing "... considered of Armenian origin" to "He could have been of armenian origin based on an alleged latin inscription" is not "adding context" but actually contradicting the other sources that are already cited in the article.

There is no problem with including how doubtful or uncertain is Odo's Armenian origin – but we are not allowed to choose the conclusion of one valid source over that of another valid source, as you have done. We have to work on a form of text that represents all the reliable sources, not simply include the view of the one we prefer, and ignore the others. In any case, the Yevadian article you are citing does not in fact say that: "no evidence of the inscription has been found yet", as you put it. It says it has not been located, but discusses the evidence for its existence in depth. That's not "no evidence".

Much more important is that the traditional belief in Odo being Armenian does not come from this inscription at all: the inscription was "allegedly" unearthed in the 1960s; Odo has been spoken of as Armenian for much longer, going back centuries. It is true there is no documentary evidence of Odo's origin, but the tradition does not come from the inscription or surviving documents. This belief comes from his architectural style.

Please do not respond here, but discuss at the article talk page at Talk:Odo of Metz § Lead change, as I have asked you to do before (see #Please join discussion on talk page and #July 2024). Please do not change it again without reaching consensus there. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Golikom. I noticed that you recently removed content from Justacorps 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. Golikom (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think 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 ~~~~}}.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PCC556, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Golikom. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1930–1945 in Western fashion 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. Golikom (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

False, i literally wrote"Eliminated a section that cites a website which provides no sources and overexagerates Hollywoods influence on fashion and even goes as far as to claim Paris didn't dictate fashion trends anymore when it's alright false" you keep falsely accusing me of deleting content without explaining why PCC556 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Golikom. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1400–1500 in European fashion 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. Golikom (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

False, i literally wrote in the section to justify the changes: "The pomegranate and artichoke motive first originated in Italy in the early 15th century and didn't reach the Ottoman Empire until the 16th century as demonstrated by https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/1042/. Even the MET says the pomegranate motive didn't appear in Ottoman Empire till Soleyman reign" PCC556 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit summaries

Hey, PCC566: I know it's frustrating when others don't see what we see, and I can certainly understand why having your well-intentioned edits – which you believe to be correct – reverted might seem harsh. However, could you tone it down a bit in the edit summaries? Editors cannot respond to you there, and after all Golikom only used the standard message to suggest your edit summary did not justify the changes you made. The message invites you to communicate with the sender at their talk page if you feel they made a mistake (not go straight back and revert their reversion and scold them in the ES). AukusRuckus (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Odo of Metz. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have mentioned a few times you might consider toning down your edit summaries. Saying someone is 'lying' is going too far. We are expected to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Please read that and also WP:NPA. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 (continued)

(edit conflict) I'm not Golikom, of course, but my understanding of their reversions are: saying "The pomegranate and artichoke motive first originated in Italy in the early 15th century and didn't reach the Ottoman Empire until the 16th century as demonstrated by https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/1042/(Fanelli source cited by PCC566). Even the MET says the pomegranate motive didn't appear in Ottoman Empire till Soleyman reign" is not, given previous objections, an adequate or valid explanation. Goliko used, as recommended, the standard user talk page message. They were not "falsely accusing" you of anything; instead, they were following normal WP practice.

Similarly, at 1930–1945 in Western fashion, your edit summary "Eliminated a section that cites a website which provides no sources and overexagerates Hollywoods influence on fashion and even goes as far as to claim Paris didn't dictate fashion trends anymore when it's alright false", is not a valid reason for removing (nearly) a whole paragraph. I happen to agree with you in some ways. It was poorly written and overstates what the source says. You then take it a step too far and just "eliminate" it, as you say. But it could be rephrased, or expressed better, surely? In most cases that's the better way to go. Your assertion most definitely "over-exaggerates" by saying it's "outright false". WP doesn't have to take your word for it: you need to write something yourself and back that with sources. Put new claims and sources out there, leave the "totally false" and "as I already explained"-type comments out of edit summaries. If another editor reverts or challenges you, take a step by step defence of your position to the article talk page, with your specific backup. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 1930–1945 in Western fashion, you may be blocked from editing. Stop blanking sourced material. Discuss on talk Golikom (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Justacorps, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Golikom (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits on Frog

Hi PCC566: You may not be aware, but it is usually not acceptable on WP to edit through multiple accounts. Sometimes relatively new users do not realise this. However, editing with different accounts can make others think that an editor is doing it so as to avoid complying with various WP policies. It appears to me to be the case from recent edits on Frog (fastening), but I may be mistaken. If those other accounts are not yours, then I apologise.

Speaking of the Frog article, I wonder if you might think my latest changes go some way to satisfying your concerns? I need to find a few more sources, but I hope you might feel it doesn't deserve an instant reversal. Let me know, preferably on the article talk page. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes i'm more or less satisfied with your article but i'll later add sources that point to the origins of frog clausures in turkic cultures which spreaded it to China and Europe 139.47.112.77 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Please try consultation with fellow editors

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Odo of Metz. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. It is becoming quite disruptive and distressing. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello, I'm Golikom. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Justacorps have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. The lead paragraph you're moving is a reasonable summary of the content of the article. The information you're adding is WP:SYNTH of sources that either don't even mention the subject or are WP:BLOG. Golikom (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)