User talk:Pisarz12345: Difference between revisions

Hello, Pisarz12345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out [[ the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  
  
  

==References==
{{Reflist}}

It's time you learned that the full stop should appear before the reference, not after. It would be a good idea, too, to make sure that you are not duplicating information already in the article, as you just did in the case of John Donne and George Herbert. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using this same clunky wording across a whole range of articles, replacing better wording with your preferred text. Also please learn about where references go - they go AFTER the punctuation, not before. Your edits are starting to look like spam. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pope Gregory I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commemoration. 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) 05:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding information about veneration. You are here for a year now, - here are two secrets to more happiness: write an edit summary for each edit, and follow WP:BRD which is a good idea to avoid edit-warring. It translates to bold-revert-discuss, and means: when a bold edit is reverted, don't revert back, but begin a talk page discussion. Even if you don't think an edit was bold, the revert shows you that at least one other does. Don't revert back but propose your edit on the talk page and try to find consensus for the addition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Gerda Arendt. Edit summaries help a lot. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pope Paschal I, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pope Paschal I, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope Paschal I. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

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 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. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Pope Paschal I, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pisarz12345, you've already received a 3 revert warning in the section above. If you continue to edit war to restore poorly sourced content without first achieving consensus on the article talk page, you will be blocked from editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: ). Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Pope Paschal I. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hildegard of the Vinzgau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Jesse for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English-language hymnals by denomination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Arnold.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nicholas II of Russia. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of dictionaries by number of words, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Frisian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Pisarz12345, the other problem is you failing to WP:COMMUNICATE. This may well be the last partial block you get before facing a sitewide one of considerable length (up to and including of an indefinite duration). Please do better. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked, please follow the instructions above. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pisarz. Don't know if it matters to you, I just saw that you've contributed to that article. I'll only bother you this one more time. If you want, you can find the current discussion here. It's a bit stuck. I'm not a native speaker and don't know what feels like being the right variant in your area and community, and the online available data is not always clear or the best criterion. Thanks and all the best, Arminden (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Salmer 1973, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pisarz12345. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salmer 1973, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican Liturgical book has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pisarz12345. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Salmer 1973".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Photius, Metropolitan of Moscow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blind, I can read. So, please stop repeatibg the same argument against a policy. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blind Pisarz12345 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Calendar of saints (Church in Wales) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]