User talk:User3749/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/94.204.65.70, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Robynthehode (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the case. User3749 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to respond at the appropriate place as per the link above. You risk being blocked for a substantial time or permanently for this kind of behaviour if proven. Robynthehode (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you see my other edits,you can see that most edits are not about that article. User3749 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What I mean by “This is not the case” is that when I tried to create a page fixing the typo to stop that argument but it says I need to log in but I don’t have one so I created an account but I received this notification before I even started to create the page I’m talking about User3749 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to this message as soon as possible. User3749 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Note

Hi. So, I see the confusion as our message tells you to create an account to edit. Cool. The problem is that you appear to be the intended target of the block, which we normally don't allow. It was 24 hours so I'm not going to block this account. You need to stop and not keep up your edit war, however. The page has been protected, so you can't now, but Wikipedia requires you to talk. Once the protection expires or you have enough experience to edit it, if you start up again, this account is very likely to be blocked. If you have concerns raise them on the talk page by clicking the talk tab on your browser. Let me know if you have any questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. User3749 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, User3749, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

User3749, good luck, and have fun. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. User3749 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Good read, might help. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLANKING

Theprussian is permitted to remove warnings and other messages from their own talk page. There are a limited number of things that a user may not remove from their own talk page, and none of them are present at that user's talk page. On the other side of the coin, repeatedly restoring blanked content to another user's talk page exposes that user to being blocked for violation of the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred However, the 3rr says "An editior must not preform more than 3 reverts on a single page", and see how I stopped immediately after I reach 3 reverts to follow the rules, and if I make a 4th revert that's what violates that rule, but I did not, because I stopped after reaching the maximum number of Reverts. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And my mention was to make sure you're aware of 3RR. Thank you for confirming that you are. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line, @User3749:, is that you have no right to mess with someone else's talk page, never mind the 3RR rule. An editor is essentially free to decide what's on their own talk page and you'll just have to live with that. Understood??? SolarFlash^Discussion 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash I understand, but this makes it sound like that if I can blank my talk page, I don't want to do that either, so if they blank talk pages I'm not going to do that, but anyway is this what you mean? User3749 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Brooklyn Nine Nine

Don't undo my stuff I know what happened Elizabeth vamp (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elizabeth vamp, it's reverted because it is vandalism and if you think that is a mistake please reply User3749 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do that I just like to go in detail so that other users can understand better Elizabeth vamp (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean User3749 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mahathi, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	for your work on John Barilaro. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 07:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok Elizabeth vamp (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

deleted news

Hello I saw that you helped restore this page to an earlier version because somebody deleted the bad news. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UP_Sigma_Rho_Fraternity&action=history

I'm new in wikipedia. how do we go about making sure a page is not vandalized? someone has since deleted it again

You can use this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&damaging=likelybad&hidepreviousrevisions=1&urlversion=2 which will lead to a recent changes and then you can also look at my contribution to see because if any edits that are unrelated to the article or is fake or inappropriate content it is considered vandalism, see also WP:VANDALISM, that link up there shows edits which likely be vandalism and you can revert them there User3749 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically, just look for edits that say "Possible vandalism" or "Possible BLP issue"

Give you a example of vandalism here at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screen_time&diff=prev&oldid=962851137&diffmode=source , where that IP address put in even a bad word there but a letter was replaced with 8 and compared to the one which I then reverted

July 2020

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@CLCStudent thank you very much for that information.

Your recent editing history at Chapo Trap House 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.
You are absolutely wrong about an exemption for badly sourced or unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

However, I have blocked the IP. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced content is exempt from the 3rr policy. that says on WP:Edit warring#Exemptions.User3749 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that's only in relation to clear BLP violations, and I don't see a clear BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller: I said "Twitter is not a reliable source", so I reverted it, that said would be a exemption of the 3rr policy according to what I think in the link I give above User3749 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It said "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy", that's what I think it would be an exemption, and another editor said "Stop adding content from Twitter" too. User3749 (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Plus, I did not make more than 3 reverts. I only did 3, if I did 4 it would be a violation of the 3rr policy. User3749 (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller, in addition to this, the ip is the one who made more than 3 reverts and I did not make more than 3.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "however". But it wasn't a BLP violation. You can ask at WP:BLPN if you don't believe me. How were the tweets defaming anyone? Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please explain!

Why do you consider my edit as vandalism? --2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35, all is explained on WP:VANDALISM.

The content wasn't vandalism, but more rather a WP:NPOV policy violation, hence why it was removed in the first place. Adding it back is disruptive and will be reverted. Also, User3749, you can't just link to a non-specific action. If somebody asks you to explain your actions, you should do so, rather than linking to a policy and just being like "read this" - and please sign your edits, and remember to use the {{replyto}} template to reply to users, and leave {{tb}} on an IP page as they do not receive pings. Ed6767 talk! 12:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a violation against WP:NPOV. The opposite is true. Of course there are members of the organized Bahai Community who do not agree to the fact that you don't have to be a member of the community to be a Bahai. But this is only their point of view. You also don't have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be Christian! --2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35 (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Allen Bradley Clock Tower

Thanks for providing a citation at List of largest clock faces for the Allen Bradley Clock Tower. I have also checked sources and none say it is a chiming clock so have left your original change as 'No' to chiming. Have included a better citation for the clock. Please make sure you do not mark any changes you make as 'typos' unless they really are typographical errors (small grammar, punctuation, spelling errors etc). Any other changes should be called what they are in the edit summary. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice job with those quick reverts. Keep up your good work! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank You For The Advice I Will Provide Explanation From This Time

I Have Corrected The Page To Its Orginal Form Thank You Ayan 2019 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding List Of Rajya Sabha Members Page

Please Revert The Page To August 14

The Present Condition Of The Page Is False And Some Mistakes

Please Compare My Version With The Old Version On August 14

I Corrected The Mistake And Colours

Please Revert To Old Version On August 14 Ayan 2019 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if i find the page incorrect i will revert to the edit on august 14. However, can I ask you that when you remove content, always provide a explanation of why the content should be removed, or others will think your edit might be vandalism and might mistakenly revert your edit. Anyways, thanks. User3749 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For being kind and respectful :) Prolix 💬 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your assistance tonight! Patient Zerotalk 04:30, 15 October 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Seinfeld Page

Hello! You have reverted my edit on the Seinfeld page. Please tell me why the source I used is unreliable. It was an interview with Jerry Seinfeld himself, I can't think of a more reliable citation. TylerSkift24 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

TylerSkift24Hi,

I said that source is unreliable because it points to YouTube. According to WP:RS, YouTube is generally considered a self published source and may not always be correct. You can add another more reliable source about the same info. Please have a read at Wikipedia:RSPYT. Thanks User3749 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read that reliable source notice you linked closer. The cited video was on the Today Show's official YouTube. Unless your contention is that NBC News is not a reliable source, there is nothing wrong with that link as a source for a quote (direct or indirect) from the JS interview. Pinging TylerSkift24. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not saying that NBC news is not reliable, but please see WP:RSPYT so even if its from the offical youtube channel there should be some similar content from its official website, so that can be cited instead. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler

182.73.241.190 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)I have noticed that there is no spoiler warning in all the movie's plot topic. I agree some of the films' plot details are not spoilers for first time readers but many of the movie pages contain spoilers. If there is no disclaimer for spoilers the first time movie goers experience is ruined sometimes. I agree that the reader is also responsible, but it would be better to add a disclaimer when there are excessive spoilers about a film. That way the reader can be informed that he has to read this upcoming topic at his own risk of spoiling the film. Same goes to certain books as well. It may not be constructive but it's of great effect. 182.73.241.190 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILERS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, but per WP:SPOILERS it says that such alerts are no longer being used, due to some issues explained on that page, so that edit would be unconstructive because it also added the content "spoiler warning" rather than an template, and such are no longer being used. Thanks User3749 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Will you ever want to create your userpage? -User:Cupper52 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cupper52 Hi, I am planning to create one but it will start as a userbox only first and then add more info, thanks User3749 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just to add to this, please make sure you carefully distinguish the way you deal with vandalism and other problematic but not deliberately harmful edits. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell Ok thank you I will be careful. but anyway thanks User3749 (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@User3749: I was the user who requested you to be one. Thanks, -Cupper52^Discuss! 12:04: 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Cupper52 Hi, thank you as well User3749 (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Observation

Hi. Have a good read of two essays: WP:BRI, and WP:MOV. Reverting adds to their adrenaline levels, and keeps them recognised. Ignoring them keep them occupied waiting for a dissapointing response. Unless it's highly abusive, I wouldn't bother. The trolling is the getting of a response. HTH. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz Hi thanks but as that user is an LTA it could be considered highly abusive as that user is causing rapid disruption. But anyway thank you I will ignore any trolls in the future (i.e. per WP:RBI ignoring any messages on their talk page. thanks, User3749 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 11:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Rollback granted

Hi User3749. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I want to upload Hangi's photo but I can't. Do you have any idea why?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negingrn (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, which photo are you refering to? The upload wizard may be helpful. On the navigation bar, on the "contribute" section, click the "Upload file". User3749 (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I got a message about my edit to Del Bigtree's page.

The references I gave were either to Bigtree's own programmes, or to talks Andrew Read gave, so I gave the date and place of the talk, as per academic convention. Perhaps this is different to how Wikipedia cites references, but I wouldn't know, as I'm an academic, rather than a wikipedia editor.

Anyways, thanks for the polite message.

I really wrote it to confirm for myself that it wouldn't pass the censors. In the current pro-vaccine climate, there is zero chance, however much proof anyone has, that facts get published which contradict the pro-vax narrative for covid. You're probably a very nice person, but even if you wanted to allow the edit, someone else would delete it and you'd be out of a job. It's the NWO, after all.

In this new Dark Age, we have to do what we can to oppose evil forces, and it will cost us all personally. That's my take on it anyway, and eventually we'll reenter the light. At that point we have to face ourselves and our consciences. I'll end now. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.205.203 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ezinkulu

Hi, thanks for your work combatting vandalism. You might have been a bit quick with 46.69.214.86 though. It seems like he was just adding (poorly formatted) translated song titles. Cheers, AntiVan (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiVan Hi. That edit was probably vandalism because the edit added some text that may not necessarily be song titles and also could be also reverted as it is unconstructive and also some text have no meaning at all, so that could be unhelpful to the page. As you see other text such as "they defeated him" are also nonsense and could be considered vandalism. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiVan Hi, just an update, the edits were actually clear vandalism because the IP has been blocked now. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not vandalism, "they defeated him" is a direct translation of the Zulu title of that song "Bamnqobile"[[1]]. I guess others made the same mistake you did, hence the ban. I agree it wasn't neat, and could have used a more helpful edit summary, but it seems like it was a budding editor making good faith edits. AntiVan (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiVan Hi. I agree that may not be intended in bad faith but it was kind of unconstructive to the page and may be reverted. Anyway, I also agree that the edit summary could be more helpful but what I noticed that made me think it is vandalism is that the titles had random capitalization (such as "the Bay is waiting") and is not capitalized correctly which is a common indicator of vandalism, and also some other are obviously non-english or just basically nonsense. By the way bans are different from blocking, see the the blocking policy and the banning policy. On the blocking policy it states that Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban. so they are different. Thanks anyway. User3749 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Craig C. Fishbein

I just messed up pinging you about a response on Talk:Craig C. Fishbein, so I thought I'd let you know here that you have a response. Thrilling, eh? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Special Collections, Leeds University Library

Hi User3749, I'm afraid I disagree with your removal of my external links. I am currently doing a project with Leeds University Library to update the pages of those whose collections we hold, like Arthur Ransome. I'd appreciate if you'd stop deleting/reporting my work when I'm just providing extra information for any researchers about the material we hold. Kindest regards.

Hi, your additions of external links does not comply with the policy because promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:NOPROMO and WP:NOSPAM. Adding external links for that reason may be considered promotional, as by doing so it may be seen as attempting to increase the search engine ranking. Also please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes like ~~~~. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi User3749, the external links are not a promotion but an improvement of the page by allowing viewers to access archive material about the person and their work. Moreover, the page often highlights their work (which we hold) and would therefore constitute as an external link, not a promotion. Arthur Ransome's page for example, has many other external links about his work as you can see here; Works by Arthur Ransome at Project Gutenberg; Works by Arthur Ransome at Faded Page (Canada; Works by or about Arthur Ransome at Internet Archive. My work is along the same vein. I'd once again be grateful if you would stop removing my work on these pages. Kindest regards SBennett (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

My link were removed from the post PC games

I don't know why you removed the external link I inputted. You told that it was irrelevant for an encyclopedia,as we all know I just wanted to add more information to it;where encyclopedia is a bundle of information,so to make it more helpful to others we have to follow hollistic approach to make the PC games encyclopedia more better. Thats why I added this link to it;which covers more awesome lst of shooting games for PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1A2B:B62D:460:188:FD27:74E4 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack Polanski

The IP edits were not vandalism, and you were wrong to label them as such. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can you please clarify which IP edits were not vandalism and why was it not? If you were referring to 92.22.239.60, that edits were actually WP:BLP violations and should be reverted. Also, I didn't label these edits as "vandalism" as said in the edit summary. User3749 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I should note that I did left a warning on the talk page that said "appear to be vandalism" but when using Huggle that is the only warning that I can use with huggle. I just reverted it as a standard revert so it is the default warning for that, and I have no way to change it to Uw-disruptive2. User3749 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You used a vandalism notice - it is up to you what you post on other people's talk pages, don't blame the tools. Your reversion did not remove a blp violation, nor did it remove a disruptive edit. It removed a referenced factual statement. Please be more careful in future. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I will be careful next time, but I want to note that I was not blaming the tools, I just didn't meant to mark the edits as vandalism. User3749 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Republic of Ghana

Were you planning on adding a {{Copyvio-revdel}} for that content? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding, I was going to add that template but I received this message before I did. User3749 (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oopsie... I appear to have asked you about this by accident. Someone had reverted about 13k of text as copyvio. Somehow I went to your talk page. I see you haven't reverted that much recently. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello I am just making sure if you sent this message or topic intentionally, as I did the revert. User3749 (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)