User talk:TheHistoryBuff101

Welcome

Hello, TheHistoryBuff101, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing 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 help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

TheHistoryBuff101, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheHistoryBuff101! 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 Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please refrain from making major edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to James Cameron, without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a major change. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop

You don't just show up here and start changing infobox images, these edits need to be discussed first. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sylvester Stallone. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Terminator 2: Judgment Day. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --- FlightTime (open channel) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note, as was pointed out in the above ANI discussion, that per WP:BOLD, editors are in general not required to get permission or consensus before making edits, incuding changes to photos in infoboxes. Editors, especially new ones, may make mistakes or questionable changes, which can be reverted per WP:BRD, but that's not disruption. I've reviewed the edits mentioned above, and the multiple warnings about disruptive editing appear to be in error. --IamNotU (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm EPIC. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to California 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 help desk. Thanks. EPIC (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

EPIC, In leaving the note below, I noticed your message here. I looked at the edits you mentioned, and they don't seem like vandalism or disruption to me. They appear to be valid per MOS:CAPTION, adding or removing periods from sentences or sentence fragments respectively. I do see a couple of errors in doing that, and an erroneous addition to a subheader, but it seems more likely to be a simple typo. What do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU This seemed like vandalism to me, but maybe it was a mistake. EPIC (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Germany does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. It's helpful to leave an edit summary, even if you are making a small change like removing a period. Other editors may review your edits, and tiny changes like that are often difficult to see in the "diffs". Thanks. IamNotU (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm asking you again to please provide an edit summary for your edits. For example, you could use: "Removed period from sentence fragment per MOS:CAPTION", or "Added period to full sentence per MOS:CAPTION", for many of your recent edits. It can be helpful to keep frequently-used edit summaries in a text file, so you can easily cut and paste them. Edit summaries help avoid misunderstandings about what you are doing, and reduce the time other editors spend reviewing your edits. If you have read and understood this, please let me know with a short reply below, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your recent edits have no had any Edit summaries, so we don't know why you are making them. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lots of edits, little communication. --IamNotU (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My Response

Hello. I have just received a notification on my talk page that there is ongoing discussion about my editing. While I perfectly understand that I have not provided edit summaries and have not responded to your complaints, I just want to make absolutely clear that I have not been engaged in neither disruptive editing nor vandalism, as the edits I've made have been only about removing periods from certain image captions, rewriting image captions, fixing incorrect links to articles, and removing or replacing unnecessary pictures. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and I'm taking steps to ensure I edit articles the right way.

Thanks very much for responding! I'm glad to know that you've heard peoples' concerns, and will take steps to address them. I agree that none of your edits have been vandalism. As I noted above, the one warning you received about vandalism was a mistake. On the other hand, I think there is a general agreement that not communicating, on talk pages and in edit summaries, can often disrupt the smooth operation of a collaborative work like Wikipedia, as described in Wikipedia:Communication is required.

Regarding edit summaries, I understand that they're extra work that slows editing down, and may seem unnecessary for minor edits. Nevertheless they're important because they help avoid misunderstandings, and wasting other peoples' time in checking the edits. You've received numerous complaints on this talk page, and even if some of them are not really justified, they don't look good - especially if you don't respond. They may contribute to a bad reputation, and make other people more likely to revert your edits, or even give more warnings. If editors see a dozen or more small edits to an article, with no explanation at all, from a user with no user page and a lot of unanswered "disruptive editing" complaints, they may react negatively. So again, I'm glad that you've responded here.

Edit summaries are especially important when removing existing text. I reverted your edits to Pyongyang because among other things they deleted "during the 1920s", and I couldn't see a reason for that.

I noticed that you did make a few edit summaries recently, like Added a period to the image caption or Removed a period from the image caption. It would be more helpful if you say why you did it. For example: "[[MOS:CAPTION]]: full sentences should end with a period", or "[[MOS:CAPTION]]: [[sentence fragments]] should not end with a period", or even just "Formatting per [[MOS:CAPTION]]". If you're making a series of the same kind of edits, you can maybe leave it out on the rest of them.

I hope that helps, and thanks again for discussing it. --IamNotU (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I normally just use "better wording" or "better wording in image caption" as my edit summary for removing unnecessary periods from sentence fragments, and no-one has ever criticized me for doing so; I don't think an explanation of why it's better wording is necessary. The only exception is if the changes might be reasonably disputed, for example "better wording -- in accordance with MOS:NUMERAL" and the like. I did start marking period-removal edits as minor, after someone angrily upbraided me for not doing so. MPS1992 (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	for your many improvements to the grammar of image captions and similar areas. I am sorry that some editors have reacted to your valuable contributions in a way that may appear ungrateful MPS1992 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

US - U.S.

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit: [1] that changed an established spelling of "US" to "U.S.", because the Manual of Style says that the spelling should be retained in this case. There were several similar edits in Gulf War. Please see MOS:US for more details, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to add on to this, with the edits at United States Armed Forces - the MOS says that either US or U.S. is acceptable, so long as it’s consistent within the article. Garuda28 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Garuda28, you are correct - in both of these specific articles, the established spelling should be retained. There are only limited cases where it can be changed, again the details are found in MOS:US. --IamNotU (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

MCU film GA status

Hi, I notice last month you nominated the Captain Marvel article for GA status and requested that the Black Panther article be relisted. Thing is, both of those articles have issues that have been addressed in multiple GA reviews and at least one GA reassessment going back some years, and those issues really need to be addressed before either article can be promoted. Would you be interested in helping to address them? If so, I'd be glad to provide details, but if not I'd like to request that you withdraw your nomination of the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in helping address some of these issues. Keep in mind though, that I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia and I've never done a Good Article reassessment nor a nomination. I would be glad if you could show me what the issues are.

Well, the key discussion pages are Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1 (where the "cast" problems were raised and caused that GAN to fail by default as they were never addressed -- the subsequent Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2 was a tendentious attempt to sneak past the clear lack of consensus to promote during the previous discussion), Talk:Black Panther (film)/GA1 (where the issue of POV-editing leading to tone problems with the articles was raised, but never addressed, as the reviewer was either a sock of a banned editor or someone with less experience than you who should never have been reviewing the article in the first place) and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Black Panther (film)/1 (where plagiarism problems led to the article being delisted).

The single biggest content problem is potential and/or actual textual plagiarism -- one of the main editors of those articles until earlier this year has an active contributor copyright investigation and the two others have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or recognize the problem, and the Black Panther article (where it first came to light) was found to have serious issues in a number of places. The problem with copyvio is that while blatantly copy-pasting an entire paragraph of text and presenting it as one's own words, as happened here, is fairly easy to catch as long as the source is available online, a lot of these articles are also WP:QUOTEFARMs, so that they are not taking a source's words and presenting them as our own, but they are also violating standard Wikipedia writing style by presenting hardly any substantial information in original prose. (WP:GAFAIL#2 and WP:GACR#1)

Other (lesser) problems include

• potential POV issues (one of the articles' main editors got very, very angry when I made a talk page comment that mentioned in an off-handed manner that children are the main audience for these films and the source of most of their revenue; the Black Panther article actually doesn't point this pretty basic fact out directly, even though much of what it does say relies on the assumptions that readers are already aware of the fact, and I suspect it might be the denialism of one editor, or a small cadre of editors, working on them) (WP:GACR#4 and kinda #3) and
• the fact that the character descriptions in the cast list are complete WP:OR based on synthesis of various films in the franchise, often being change after the films are released and they turn out to have been completely wrong (Iron Man 3, for example, used to say Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin: The leader of the international terrorist organization The Ten Rings., citing the official website and two pre-release "secondary sources" written by people who had no idea what the film was about; it now reads Ben Kingsley as Trevor Slattery: A British actor whom Killian hired to portray the Mandarin, a terrorist persona in jammed television broadcasts in which he is depicted as the leader of the international terrorist organization the Ten Rings., and cites exactly the same sources!). (WP:GACR#2)
• Additionally, as has been pointed out recently on the Captain Marvel talk page but was arguably a more serious issue with Avengers: Endgame, a lot of the poster billing is nothing but misleading, non-spoiler, marketing fluff, or the result of negotiations with major actors to work for less or get less screen time than they might otherwise claim if their name appears on the poster of a major blockbuster, and is not an objective measure of each cast member's prominence in the film itself by any measure; the articles' "owners" frequently claim that it's a neutral and incontrovertible means of avoiding people giving bullet points to their favourite actor or character, but there's actually nothing neutral about it, and once the films have been released and we have reviews by professional film critics, we really shouldn't be using that criterion. It has also never, apparently, been supported by consensus among uninvolved editors, but rather is shoehorned in as to all the articles by a small group of editors who then call it the WP:STATUSQUO (which I should point out doesn't actually apply to articles on major films that see huge floods of attention and massive changes at certain periods, and started out spending months or years in the draft space where the majority of our editors didn't even know they existed).
• There is also stability; articles that are subject to frequent tag-teaming and ownership, and either are subject to, or would be subject to if it weren't for the tag-teaming and ownership driving editors away in frustration, edit wars technically do not meet WP:GACR#5

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As for both articles, it seems like I can only be able to resolve the plagiarism issues, but the rest I can't seem to do myself. Relisting Black Panther and listing Captain Marvel as good articles are going to have to be a community effort.

Well, good luck getting the community involved. It's a toxic atmosphere that I've been struggling to work in for four years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do.

Non-free images

Please see WP:IMAGERES: non-free images cannot exceed 100,000px. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Keep up the great work. But pls try to add some sort of edit summary.....something like " grammar fix " will help us and also prevent some of the reverts that people do. Moxy 🍁 04:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but only if that is accurate and honest.
Please refer to the section immediately below this. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Regarding your contributions today.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A friendly reminder ~

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to Paris did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, - ~mitch~ (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TheHistoryBuff101 you are still not using edit summaries. Could I urge you to please use them? They make it much easier for people to understand why you are making particular changes, which makes collaborative editing much easier. Thank you, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federal State of Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatherland Front (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) 08:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Spain, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Regarding your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to United Kingdom does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Hi - you might like to withdraw most of your nominations as they have swamped the page. I'd suggest alimit of two at a time. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, how about something on the history of birds? – Sca (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Charles. Please stop nominating images - this is highly uncivil and disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sir Winston Churchill

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Alt captions

Please do not delete the alternative text on images. They have a purpose. See MOS:ALT for more info. Also, as it's been pointed out numerous times already, please start using edit summaries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Following the previous message, you still don't leave edit summaries, as it can be seen there [2]... It happens to forget from time to time, but that would be useful for the rest of us if you started to use them.

Best regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm CocoricoPolynesien. 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 the 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.

I will add that you have been repeatedly ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) asked to provide edit summaries (WP:ES), and apparently chose to completely disregard it. Examinations of your contributions show that you make numerous small edits on a same page, and providing an edit summary for all of them might be challenging. However, removing an entire section of an article without any explanation is quite inadequate.

Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: French Invasion of Russia

Hi, just letting you know I undid your edit to the list of leaders and restored the list to alphabetical order as you gave no reason for the change. As I see you have been repeatedly asked for edit summaries. We all forget sometimes, but you really need to communicate to the rest of us your thinking. We aren't mind readers, we don't immediately understand why you did something if you don't tell us. Please begin using edit summaries so we know why you're doing things. Darthkenobi0 | talk 23:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision diffs
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Note: Your edit summary stats are an abysmal 3% of 10,000+ edits. By not leaving a simple summary describing the changes you've made (and it can be brief, there are even abbreviations you can use), you are just creating work for other editors that need to check your edits. Please leave a summary with every edit you make. Thank you - wolf 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Dresden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources.
Please stop updating content without updating the attached source as well. Thank you - wolf 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)