User talk:Eimaivault
April 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Miner Editor. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Brezarić—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Miner Editor (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Shut up vault (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
[edit] Hello, I'm DarkAudit. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Brezarić—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. DarkAudit (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ludwig van Beethoven 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Shut the hell up, it's just that one guy reverting it vault (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- You've been reverted by two different editors. Regardless, WP:EW doesn't give an allowance for you to continue an edit war simply because only one person is reverting you. You are also engaging in edit warring on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Further, your "shut the hell up" comment doesn't do anything to buttress you argument and make you more right. It's also a violation of WP:CIVIL. If you continue to edit war and/or continue to violate the WP:CIVIL policy, you can expect to be blocked from editing. Your choice. If any of this is unclear to you, certainly ask. But, keep it civil. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Despite the warnings above, you have continued your edit warring at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart with this edit. Since the warnings are having no effect, I have temporarily blocked you. If you continue to edit war after the block expires, you can expect the next block to be considerably longer. Again, if you have questions, by all means ask. Continuing as you have been is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just added a marriage date, no one unedited it. My Lord are you retarded vault (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Before today, you removed Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg as a link for Salzburg five different times, and were reverted as many times [1][2][3][4][5]. Despite the first warning above issued at 00:13, 26 June 2023, one of those attempts by you happened after that first warning [6]. You got another warning from me about edit warring issued at 20:11, 26 June 2023. Apparently you didn't heed that warning either, as today, 27 June, you decide to try yet again to remove Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg as the link for Salzburg, which are not the same thing. The only attempt you have made to communicate any concern on the article was this, which vaguely described an issue with the infobox. You were told that you would need to get consensus to change it at 02:20 27 June 2023 [7], but chose to ignore that too as six hours later to attempted to change this for the sixth time [8]. If you want to call my assessment of your edit warring "retarded", I really don't care. Your use of insults is a comment on you, not on me. It does nothing to buttress your argument, but rather make your argument have less substance than it did before. If you continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you can expect a significant extension of your block. If you aren't able to follow those policies or, worse, believe this somehow makes your editing more acceptable here, you are in the wrong place. If you still believe you have been blocked in error, then add the following text below:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Another administrator (who isn't intellectually disabled as you have assessed me to be) will review the block and decide if it was properly placed or grant your unblock based on the strength of your argument to be unblocked. I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before appealing your block. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Before today, you removed Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg as a link for Salzburg five different times, and were reverted as many times [1][2][3][4][5]. Despite the first warning above issued at 00:13, 26 June 2023, one of those attempts by you happened after that first warning [6]. You got another warning from me about edit warring issued at 20:11, 26 June 2023. Apparently you didn't heed that warning either, as today, 27 June, you decide to try yet again to remove Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg as the link for Salzburg, which are not the same thing. The only attempt you have made to communicate any concern on the article was this, which vaguely described an issue with the infobox. You were told that you would need to get consensus to change it at 02:20 27 June 2023 [7], but chose to ignore that too as six hours later to attempted to change this for the sixth time [8]. If you want to call my assessment of your edit warring "retarded", I really don't care. Your use of insults is a comment on you, not on me. It does nothing to buttress your argument, but rather make your argument have less substance than it did before. If you continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you can expect a significant extension of your block. If you aren't able to follow those policies or, worse, believe this somehow makes your editing more acceptable here, you are in the wrong place. If you still believe you have been blocked in error, then add the following text below:
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Eimaivault! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
It looks like you are new and have no idea about some things on Wikipedia, and have nothing to say but "shut up". Please read a bit first. Did you know that until recently, Mozart had no infobox at all, because some editors believe his genius can't be captured in "factoids". I saw you adding precision to his places of birth and death, which I would support if discussed. Discussion is what should happen when being reverted, per WP:BRD. Otherwise, we just get an edit war. Please begin a topic at the bottom of the page (instead of adding to an old discussion that should have been archived), suggest what you want to change, and ask for discussion. If consensus is for the change, it will be implemented. Compare the recent discussion about his infobox, still on the talk page. It took just more than 10 years of patience ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Khan Tervel
[edit]Hi, this image was uploaded by me for the first time tyme many years ago for the Saint Trivelius article on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Check here. It is debatable how far this saint can be identified with Khan Tervel, but it is certainly not an image of Tervel himself, and it is not appropriate to use it on the article about this historical figure. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Its the same person. Many of those early royal saints had two names, like st. Boris-Michael, also a Bulgarian royal saint vault (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- May you provide reliable academic English language source. The original uploader Jingiby (myself) has uploaded this image under the name Saint Tribelius, not of Tervel. Jingiby (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Тъпкова-Заимова, Василка, and Рая Заимова. "Тервел-Тривелиус-Теоктист." Родина 3.21 (1940): 129-130. Now enough with the edit war and let it go vault (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- May you provide reliable academic English language source. The original uploader Jingiby (myself) has uploaded this image under the name Saint Tribelius, not of Tervel. Jingiby (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)