Welcome to Wikipedia, IOHANNVSVERVS! Thank you for your contributions. I am Aristophanes68 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((help me)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers, friend. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Ogress _smash! 09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blood-vomiting game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. 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) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. If you have questions, please contact me. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not extended confirmed so you don't have the required permissions to participate in places like this RfC. There is a notice at the top of that discussion already informing you. Orgullomoore has already struck your comments multiple times. You need to stop. JM (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JM2023: Is that kinda like stalking random SPI and reinstating the abuser's abuse like here? Or what the heck is going on? What new user does this? This user needs to disclose if you have any other Wikipedia accounts. — Smuckola(talk) 09:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on content, not on other users. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your removal of the third opinion request, you said that the entry was answered, but I think I missed the answer. Did anybody actually comment on it? I did not see any edits to the pre 1948 section nor to the start of the 1948 section. (or does the lack of response mean that the answer is "Nobody actually cares"?  :-D ) --Bertrc (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought AriTheHorse responded. If I was wrong feel free to relist your entry. Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I did see that comment. It seemed to be in support of including mention of the jewish/Palestinian violence that existed before . . . so . . . Should I re-add my edits? (Sorry, I am truly a newb at wikipedia and I do not want to trample toes) --Bertrc (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If AriTheHorse didn't address the issue then you can relist it. You may also want to clarify/simplify what exactly you need addressed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. @AriTheHorse: seemed to address it. The disagreement was whether or not to include rthe context of the war and the violence in which the Nakba began. AriTheHorse said he thought it should be included. I re-editted my change, fixing two bad ref links. The ref links look cumbersome in the edit box, but display properly when published. If my changes gets blindly reverted again for reasons such as "A book back in 2002 is too far back" or "Contemporary newspaper references are not good" or "We don't reference French Books" then I will relist --Bertrc (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, no luck. In spite of AriTheHorse' third opinion and their support for the changes, the edit war continues. My edits were blindly reverted (with no comment in the discussion, this time). I will reraise the request for additional third opinions. --Bertrc (talk) Bertrc (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I raised a (horribly formatted) dispute resolution. --Bertrc (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notifying a bunch of editors who have disagreed with another editor in the past, especially while not notifying any other editors involved, of an ANI thread is inappropriate canvassing. Please do not do this again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only notified the editors who I directly mentioned in my report by name. I understand that since I only mentioned editors who criticized the user in question that the effect is similar to canvassing, but that was not my intention at all. I'll put a notice at each discussion mentioned in my report that I opened an ANI case pertaining to those discussions, such that all editors there involved will be more equally notified. Are there any other steps that I should take to counteract this canvassing-like inequality of notification? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same user you mentioned in that discussion has been removing a lot of content from List of engagements during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. I've been unsure what to do about it. I've mentioned it to them, but I worry not very constructively. I've been trying to assume good faith because each individual edit seems justified, and I'm not even sure if the trends I think I've noticed are real, but since they're already being mentioned I wanted to point it out incase it's part of an even bigger pattern. Irtapil (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edits to Cunningham's Law because the subject is not notable. I caution you to reconsider citing a comment on a blog per WP:RS and WP:SPS. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification.

And for the record I just copied the article from https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because content is CC-BY-SA, the next time you copy from one page to another you are required to say exactly that in your edit summary rather than just "Create standalone page instead of a redirect". That way, the authors on Meta get the credit they deserve for the content you brought over. Because Meta is a different wiki, the rules there aren't necessarily the same as the rules here and a lot of folks forget that. Each of the other language wikis as well as Commons and WikiData are their own projects with differing leadership and consensuses. It wasn't only that the content wasn't any good; it's a matter of notability. Please take time to read our various policies and guidelines if you're going to edit here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]