User talk:Dark4tune

Dark4tune, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dark4tune! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Harsh 2580. I noticed that in this edit to Myyrmanni bombing, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. - Harsh (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Jklamo (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Came across your recent edit to article Georgia (country). I was looking for some proactive help in a chronological merging

Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast (list) (to create an interactive map further for the article) from some one who is acquaint/ interested in Black Sea region. Pl. visit the section list and help out if you find interested.

Thanks and warm regards

I am looking for article expansion volunteers, can you help? (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

While it is good that you are using edit summaries, edit summaries that merely state that you "edited" something, like this, are honestly rather useless as they provide no information: we know you edited the article/infobox or even section. What you changed, and why, are far more important. Please ensure that your future edit summaries include that information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Dyatlov

Hi, can you please confirm that when you removed the verification needed tag on the above-named article that you did verify that the source provided supported all of the claims made in the text preceding it? An IP had modified that text from what it originally stated, which was what prompted the addition of the VN tag, and your edit summary stated that you were removing the tag but not whether you'd done any verification. If you have not verified that the text is supported by the provided reference, can you please reinsert the VN tag? Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doniago, I can say that the source "Chernobyl: How it was" did verify that Dyatlov's death was caused by his radiation sickness from the accident. As for the other claims made, they were already there before the text was modified, so if you could, let me know if I should verify those too. Thanks! Dark4tune (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to verify the entirety of the text supported by that reference if you have it on hand, but my primary concern was the text added by the IP, since you've probably noticed that there's a lot of well-meaning editors who will insert text into sourced text that the source doesn't actually support. Thanks for the verification! DonIago (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May and June 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Belgrade school shooting‎ has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Aloha27 talk 18:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is about the background information in Belgrade school shooting.—Alalch E. 12:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Belgrade school shooting. 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 noticeboards.
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. You have named the perpetrator in the Infobox which is against WP:BLPCRIME and Talk:Belgrade school shooting#Naming the suspect. You also have been noticed there. -- DragonFederal (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have already established not to name the perpetrator in the article, and my edit has been reverted. You appear to be somewhat late to the party. Dark4tune (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Gromyko

I have submitted a request on the "Active disagreements" section of the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Egeymi (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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.

Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Your recent editing history at COVID-19 lab leak theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your edit

please explain your action here I mean this one [1] AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it would not be neutral to mention a Polish-Lithuanian victory when in reality there was no clear victor in the war. Neither side managed to truly outdo one another. The source you provide may not be entirely neutral itself. Dark4tune (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't accuse a source of not being neutral without having an argument and you haven't given any argument just some flimsy reason because it's not neutral, that's not allowed

AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not flimsy, Russia successfully drove Poland-Lithuania out of Moscow brought it back into Russian hands. At the same time, Russia did grant some of its former territories to Poland-Lithuania. Therefore, you cannot say either side was victorious as both achieved something desirable to them. You don't need a biased source to mislead you from facts. Dark4tune (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia signed an unfavourable treaty and did not push out Poles and Lithuanians what is this stupidity on the contrary it was Poles with Cossacks and Lithuanians who were under Moscow and the situation of Russians was difficult and one more thing please do not change anything without ending the discussion. And sources are always needed, this is not the way to do things. you have to give always source

And stop the edit war, in addition, if the sources say it is a victory it is a victory end and full stop

AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you rambling about? It seems to me like you've lost the argument and are now desperately trying to come up with a coherent response to counteract me. Looks like your sources can't save you anymore. Dark4tune (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the rules you have no source to back up what you are saying Mellk was trying to prove something because he had sources and you are dabbling in edit wars, this is not to be done or you risk being warned or even blocked for harmful editing. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the non-biased sources are already present in the "Aftermath" section of the article. You might need to try slightly harder to win this argument against us than doing everything in your power to make sure the infobox says "Polish-Lithuanian victory". Dark4tune (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about because I still don't understand you, the Aftermath section tells what happened afterwards and the infobox is supposed to summarize I gave a source that says Poland and Lithuania won so I don't understand your problem, these are the rules. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is a biased source. Not all sources are inherently trustworthy and we should look to them as the ultimate truth, you need to make sure you have the right sources as well. How many times should I have to tell you this? Dark4tune (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds it is biased please prove it and not lie by constantly posting evidence here : AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is biased because any source that describes a Polish-Lithuanian victory would be misleading when it is a well-established fact that there was no clear victor in the war and it ended in a stalemate. Dark4tune (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't proven that the source is biased and you are changing the subject to well-documented what the sources are? What you are saying is your thinking wikipedia is not the place to do this, you need to provide sources, you are going against the rules and your edits are damaging. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't need to provide sources, look in the "aftermath" section, it has all the sources you need. Your only argument now is that I don't provide any sources myself, when there are plenty of truthful ones to be found in the article. That's how I know that your "source" is biased. Dark4tune (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not allowed! You should give sources according to the rules, because apparently you need to be blocked, because after looking at your warning you have learnt nothing and you still ignore the rules and your edits are damaging. In the Aftermath section it says about the terms of the treaty at Deulino, strange because I thought everyone would agree that it was a Polish-Lithuanian victory, in addition you still haven't answered my question about bias, the sources confirm this. Also i gave the source. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to understand you have become a broken record talking about a "Polish-Lithuanian victory" and how you have "given a source" when both of these arguments have already been debunked. Once again, you have lost this argument and are now repeating yourself in the desperate hope that my opinions on the subject will change. Clearly you are mistaken. Dark4tune (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use personal attacks like "broken record", you still haven't proven anything, you haven't answered the question about evidence of source bias and you keep changing the subject. I consider this to be unresolved and wish you a good day o: AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent editing history at X-Men: First Class shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to place a similar warning here. By my count, three editors have opposed this change to the lead. Please gain consensus for this edit on the talkpage, since consensus is clearly currently against it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can gain consensus for it on this page, since I'm not the only one who opposes your revisions. Why do you two think our edit should be reverted? Dark4tune (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss article content is on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darktune's statement he is constantly engaged in edit wars I would like to see him blocked so that he can face the consequences of his actions despite many warnings he does not learn his lesson and keeps doing the same things. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with my statement? Alright, thanks. Dark4tune (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the meaning of the sentence to mean that you are doing the wrong thing AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Hole

See Talk:Peanut Hole#International waters vs EEZ. --Altenmann >talk 03:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August[2] 2024

Your recent editing history at Polish–Russian War (1609–1618) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing — especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring— even if you do not violate the three-revert rule — should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies...

My sincere apologies Dark4tune, it was a case of mistaken identity with a problematic editor of that page in the past, I will remove my obviously wrong warning. Now that you correctly added sources to the article I realise it's all OK with your edits. Regards. Darius (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, Darius. Wishing you all the best. Dark4tune (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]