User talk:Guto2003

Hello, Guto2003, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! The Ogre (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove dates and years from articles. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Again, pleast stop removing years and dates from articles. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard

You've been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guto2003; feel free to comment there. In addition, please read and respond to messages left on your talk page. If you've offered any justification for your removal of dates on citations, I don't see it. You've been repeatedly asked for a justification with no apparent response. If you need help using a talk page, please see Wikipedia:Talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Guto2003. You have been the subject of a Aministrative incident report as the result of what appear to a vandalising edits on Wikipedia. In future if you have reasons to remove dates or references from articles, please provide explanations in the article discussion pages. However if you persist in making edits that appear to be vandalism, and/or failing to provide adequate reasons for your edits, you will be immediately blocked from further editing. Manning (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unnecessarily harsh, to me... have you even considered the possibility this user might be acting in good faith? There's nothing so urgent about this that we need to break out that sort of threat at the get-go. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Christopher Hitchens, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian anti-communists

Please do not add the above category to articles about Iranian politicians, unless there is verifiable information present in those articles that anti-communism was/is an important part of that person's political stance. The articles where you added this category, such as Saeed Jalili, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Parviz Davoodi, etc, do not mention anti-communism at all. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop re-adding this category and please re-read WP:CONSENSUS. Once your edits have been objected to (as they have been, by me), you may not re-add the categories in question unless and until consensus to add them has been established. If you continue violating WP:CONSENSUS, you may be blocked from editing. Nsk92 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Nelson Mandela has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. Logan (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it again, on the grounds that it is unsupported by the article text, so should not be in the article lead, and is also unsupported by mainstream references. Zaian (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Brotha Lynch Hung. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop adding categories about medical conditions without providing a reliable source. Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the sources said that Ho Chi Minh is an Anti-Revisionist.--Tranletuhan (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent use of inappropriate language

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks against another editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham

Do you really think that the edit summary you used here is appropriate for a major religious leader's page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your word choice in edit-summaries is at times juvenile. Grow up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word choice employed by some Wikipedians (i.e. "dictator", "genocidal", "child eater", etc.) is "juvenile", not mine. Wikipedian opportunism and double standards is juvenile. ~~Talk to me

Incorrect; a dictator is a dictator. Genocidal has a meaning that can be verified. I have, however, never seen a person whose physique is the equal of an asshole. Arguably, motherfucker can be sourced, but you better provide a good source per BLP; but inanimate objects do not have mothers and therefore cannot fuck them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY words that can replace "dictator" in order to avoid personal points of view, such as "leader", for example.

And there are many ways of disagreeing w/o calling people motherfuckers or assholes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're spending too much time on me, me dear mate. Don't you have a wife?

~~ ;D

Per Help:Edit summary: Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Billy Graham comment on the page Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little surprised

at all your Citation Needed tag at Emma Goldman as her disillusionment with Soviet Russia is well known. It's sort of like demanding more proof that cigarette smoking is bad for your health. Oh well. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was about the allegation of "repression, mismanagement, and corruption", which can clearly be defined as an expression of the personal point of view of the asshole who has written such a sentence. Every affirmation demands a reference. ;) ~~Товарищ Гуто... Поговори со мной

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miroslav (given name) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Miroslav''' ([[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]], [[Belarusian language|Belarrussian]] and [[Russian language|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet working class

I've reverted you're edits, but maid it more clear the referencing.. (everything is referenced, I wrote the article, and nothing seems to have changed much since).. Don't worry, everything is referenced.. Secondly, while I see you're a communist, a good idea would not to identify yourself with the Soviet Union, it was a disaster. There is hope in Cuba tough, the socialist market economy will hopefully flourish there and the political system will be liberalized and further democratized :) ... Anyway, if anything else is left unclear just give a note on my talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to communism, "neutrality" don't mean shit to most "Wikipedians", ain't it, TIAYN? As they say, talk is cheap, but only in Wikipedia, bullshit talking is free. Wikipedia, a hotbed for assholes and shit talkers. Guto2003 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)I'm Guto and your opinion doesn't mean shit to me. You talking outta your ass.[reply]

By the way, I'm sorry for the late response. Your comment may have gone unnoticed, since I have some better things to do than to be engaging in discussionsin a content-free, unthrustworthy "encyclopedia". Guto2003 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)You know me and your opinion still doesn't mean shit to me anyway.[reply]

"Fascists"

I have completely reverted your edits because they were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times. Including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames. Regards, § DDima 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Fuck you. There are fascists all over that Euromaidan movement. Just check the ideology that guides most political parties involved in it, you fuck. ~~ User:Guto2003

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edits like this are completely unacceptable. I will block you if such attack repeats. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8=====D (_(_|J

Товарищ Гуша

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polish People's Republic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in East Germany at the time{{citation needed|Date=August 2014}}{{dubious}|Date=August 2014}}. These trends led to an unhealthy state of affairs where the chief determinant of economic status

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Suharto. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. for edit warring WP:3RR noting the that the category you want to add is unsupported by the article content take it to the talk page to resolve Gnan garra 07:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2011 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

internationalism|noted for his work]] on francophone [[Africa]] and the [[Soviet Union]] (b. [[1946]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hitlery Clinton

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah... Guto2003 (Come and get some!)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Rosner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guto2003

I was so impressed with your performance that I opened an ANI topic about you. Please reply there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sooo damn flattered... Thanks! Guto2003 Talk ya a** off

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Guto2003. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Lil' Keke, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Andrew Jackson & Martin Van Buren

You wrote "There were NOTHING "incidental" about Indian casualties in the removals. They were criminal acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I see a highly pro-American bias in your argumentation."

I confess to a pro-English language bias. With that in mind, I find that according to the definition of genocide, you are applying it as a contentious label.

The biological warfare involving smallpox was genocidal. The Indian Removal Act & Trail of Tears, while being acts of collective punishment, discrimination, ethnic cleansing, ethnic conflict, forced migration, human rights abuses, persecution, racism, & violence, were not genocidal as these were not an effort to extinguish those tribes. You therefore cannot call it a genocide under WP:NPOV. Others will continually revert it.

If you have a different opinion, take it to the Talk:Andrew Jackson & Talk:Martin Van Buren pages before again attempting these edits.

Peaceray (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Hello, I'm Peaceray. 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 Martin Van Buren 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. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Martin Van Buren as Category:Genocide perpetrators is a contentious label. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Andrew Jackson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people"; here the intent was to forcibly remove them to another location. Your categorization of Andrew Jackson as Category:Genocide perpetrators is a contentious label. Peaceray (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Guto2003. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. 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 Kuban Cossacks 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. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmf... yeah, whatever... --> Guto (Talking that smack will get you smacked)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kuban Cossacks. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disruptive behaviour here, only yours. Let me ask you once again: can anti-communist POV's be tolerated? If so, why? And why "Stalinist" "POV's" can't, even when they show no support or condemnation to the policies portrayed [[in the referred article? The use of words such as "horrors", etc., constitute a point of view, my dear Irina. "Policies" can be good or bad, it depends on the reader.

--> Guto (Talk your ass off...)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Kuban Cossacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna, you seem to have a proclinity in making your opinion prevalent over the policy concerning bias, don't you? As an adult, litterate (I assume so) person, you should be aware that, while the term "policies" doesn't carry any point of view at all, leaving the question at the reader's interpretation, the term "horrors" carry a strong bias in the question of point of view, which I don't think is Wikipedia's purpose at all. Should I be blocked for "edit warring"? Fine. Block me! I think you should be blocked for blatant PROPAGANDA and violation of Wikipedia's neutral standards! User:Guto2003 Talk ya ass off...

Hello, Guto2003. I've responded further on the thread we've been communicating on on the relevant talk page (also moving it to the bottom of the page per WP:BOTTOMPOST so that other editors are aware of its being a recent 'dispute', and giving them an opportunity to comment on the issue). I have no qualms about continuing the discussion, but could you please try to keep it respectful and give up the condescending tone. I don't believe you to be a fool, nor do I believe that your complaints should be entirely dismissed. I have noted that I am not the one responsible for the description in the content, but am acting in the capacity of a 'janitor' of sorts on the hundreds of articles on my watchlist. I am not trying to threaten or intimidate you, and apologise if it has come across as being my intention, but would ask that you follow WP:BRD and try to keep the discussion focussed on the article's talk page where it is far more likely to initiate a genuine dialogue between editors as to the presentation of content. I would also ask that you read WP:SHOUT before you continue such a discourse. It doesn't sit well with the community when editors end up turning potentially valid observations into WP:BATTLEGROUND soap operas. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Guards Tape

An article that you have been involved in editing—Guards Tape—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TheImperios (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jair Bolsonaro

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jair Bolsonaro. Your edits appear to be disruptive and were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view at all times, including categories labeling articles as fascist is neither neutral nor constructive. I suggest you find a more constructive habit on Wikipedia and contribute to enhancing and improving our articles rather than fueling the flames.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BDMKK (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Guto2003. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (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) 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bloods, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Florencia 13, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kuban Cossacks. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The source used does not say that. If you think your perspective is relevant, find a reliable source to back it up. I strongly suggest you read the reliable source policy first, because you are not going to find one that passes as reliable. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're delusionally hypocritical, Iryna. By insdisting in the word "horrors", you're putting your own point of view and emotional stands as a true, "neutral" account of the facts. The reliable source policies seems to apply only one disagrees with you, and your last sentences speaks very much about your personal stand on this issue. Guto (keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kuban Cossacks; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
One more such an action and I will take this to the Administrators' edit warring board. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; — You were the one who started it, by insisting that the article should match your sentimental stands regarding decossackization and collectivization. If words such as "horrors" fit the standards of a neutral encyclopedic article, then these words should be applied everywhere there should be [[Stepan Bandera|Stepan Bandera's

~~Guto (keep on talking your bullshit) 4:11 (UTC-3)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to ProleWiki

Hello, comrade. The administrators at ProleWiki came across your user profile and wanted to formalize an invitation to participate in the work with us. We want to develop ProleWiki on the principles of democratic centralism and Marxism-Leninism. If you are interested in the project, please, feel free to create an account there and contact us! --Felipe Forte ^{(have fun!)} 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-communist terrorism has been nominated for merging

Category:Anti-communist terrorism has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your undiscussed move of Re'im music festival massacre to Re'im music festival incident

It's a bad move. In the sources, "massacre" is a generally accepted word used when describing the event, which explains why in the prose of our article the event is called a massacre, and there are multiple other instances of the word "massacre". Therefore, "massacre" is the right WP:DESCRIPTOR. Massacre is indeed a strong word, but please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view: If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed. Another editor reverted the move. Sincerely—Alalch E. 17:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

I agree with the poster above that your moves seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, if you do things like this again, you are likely to get blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively. Jeppiz (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a massacre a mere "event" — that's disruptive and dishonest. Your "reliance on sources" is selective, as it works only to portray events in a way palatable to the Western agenda and people aligned to it. That's no "free encyclopedianism" at all. It is, in fact, the promotion of a racist agenda — I saw other Wikipedians being referred to as "anti occupation", as if it's bad thing, while people downplaying the magnitude of Israeli and Western crimes are propped up and encouraged to do so —, and anything that challenge this point of view is systematically suppressed as being "disruptive".

Go push your filthy ass Zionist, Eurocentric agenda elsewhere. Guto2003 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the template boilerplate, your editing has been problematic. Had you been given that template before, you would be topic banned right now. Since you had not, I will be blocking you for a week. Template telling you how to appeal incoming. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset this block to indefinite because this incident does not appear to be a one off. You haveva pattern of personally attacking people who disagree with you stretching back for your entire editing career. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and personal attacks are not an acceptable form of discourse. You may appeal this block by following the instructions in the box above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I contend this, as the so-called "free" encyclopedia is hub for hypocrisy double-standards, and one-sided application of rules and guidelines. Wikipedia have a pattern of pushing sanctions against those who present a point of view contrary to those Western-sanctioned "versions" of history — such as call a massacre committed by the Israeli military an "incident", but always using the heavy-worded term "massacre", when those civilians are Israeli or otherwise Westerners. The "justification" for this sort of racist attitude is always the same: «the sources don't say this wholesale killing of civilians was a massacre, so, for the sake of neutrality, we'll just call it an "incident"». “Neutral point of view”, y'all say, but just when it's convenient to be neutral. I refuse to comply with that double-standard, hypocrite attitude, and when I do manifest against this dictatorship of hypocrisy, I get censored by the moderation of WP, the gendarmerie of double-standards, the moral police of hypocrisy — such is the case now. That being said, I have no hope for Wikipedia, as it serves only to corroborate mainstream,"official" historiography, while setting aside serious discussion and discouraging people from seeking knowledge outside of the bubble of Western-sanctioned official history. Wikipedia is doomed to fail. Guto2003 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People have been pushing the "Wikipedia is doomed to fail because they're doing something I don't like" riff for over twenty years now. I don't pretend to be a soothsayer, but I doubt many of us are going to be holding our collective breaths waiting. Ravenswing 07:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is doomed, not because "it's doing something I don't like". Wikipedia to fail at fulfilling its promises on being a"Free encyclopedia", becoming instead a content free-encyclopedia — one that repeats that bullshit we see and read every single day in Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, Telegraph, The Miami Herald, NYT, the Washington Post, and other "mainstream media" — a gross euphemism for what should be called media monopoly. Talking about euphemisms, if your degree of cognitive development allows you to read my message properly (and I don't think this seems to be the case), you'd be able to see that the enforcing of selective use of euphemisms are the reason why I'm disgusted by this so-called "free encyclopedia". ::::I'm trying to point out to the fact that Wikipedia's alleged "neutral policy" is a lie, and it becomes all the more obvious when the moderators and admins try to enforce the double-standard of calling some massacres an "incident", while calling others a "massacre", depending on the ethnic background of the victims and perpetrators and what is their cause. It crystal clear that such a place cannot be called a "free encyclopedia" or a "free" whatever the hell it's supposed to be, and it is also crystal clear that the person I'm responding to is an utterly, disgustingly dishonest person, as well as a coward, trying to cherry pick my criticism in order to invalidate comments made by people who see this double-standards situation like I do, as well as invalidate myself as an individual. Guto2003 (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comment, I have gone ahead and disabled your talk-page access as well. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

DMacks (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]