Hi BulgeUwU! 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 Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The Straits Times, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. robertsky (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what you asked and included a citation to published source. Although the edit you are refering to did include a published source in the form of the Straits Times newspaper clipping taken from wikipedia that I included on the Straits Times wiki. Regardless I have added an extra citation.

BulgeUwU (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Stefan Molyneux, 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. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for getting to me. The source was one of Molyneux's own videos so I feared that by using it as a citation I would be helping him (him being an infamous white supremacist) achieve higher search results. I will leave that page alone because I don;t think I have the necessary experience with wikipedia to deal with those issues.

BulgeUwU (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you had edited a few articles on my watchlist. Welcome to Wikipedia!

However, I was a bit concerned about the edits. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies.

• In this edit to Lauren Southern, you made sweeping edits to terms used in the article, and added that Southern is thought to have influenced the the Christchurch mosque shootings which killed 51 people without a source. Saying that someone influenced a massacre, without offering a reliable source, is an egregious violation of the biographies of living persons policy.
• In this edit to George Jackson (activist), you added personal POV commentary inside the article. Yes, prison guards have their own views, but that was attributed to them -- "was described by prison officials" and cited to a reliable source.
• In this edit to Robert Conquest, you stated that Much of Conquest's work was covertly sponsored by the Information Research Department (IRD), a propaganda wing of the UK Foreign Office which he also worked for. While Conquest worked for the IRD until 1956, where is the source that "much of his work" later was sponsored by them? In another [1] edit you called him an "IRD propagandist". That is not neutral language.
• In this edit to Black Panther Party, you claimed that the core policy of the organisation was open carry copwatching. This sounds dubious, and again presented without a source. Later, in the lead, it is cited that their core policy were social programs (not copwatching). You also claimed, without a source, that FBI infiltration was the sole reason for in-fighting in the organisation.
• In this edit to Halford Mackinder, you added that Mackinder is a "serial killer" to the lead and said that Halford became infamous after murdering eight of his Arican porters during his expedition of Mount Kenya. While Mackinder died more than 50 years ago, strong words require explicit coverage in reliable sources. Who classifies him as a serial killer? Also, is it not inappropriate to say he murdered eight porters, when he ordered or may have ordered their execution? Calling him a serial killer and using the word murder would imply he did more than just order their execution.

Righting great wrongs is a form of tentendious editing. Even if you consider a passionate anti-imperialist or a communist point-of-view righteous, Wikipedia will not be written from that POV. I doubt you will achieve much by trying to add unneutral language and switching terms to ones you like more in lead sections. I would suggest writing new text using reliable sources, like you did to Halford Mackinder, but using neutral language and not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. --Pudeo (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking the time to get to me. I have only been using wikipedia for a few months and this is the most detailed feedback I have received so far.

• Lauren Southern's page. I will take greater care in the future to properly cite sources. Because the source is a video by her (Southern being an infamous white supremacist) I was split on whether a link to her content would be seen as a promotion and even heighten her search results. I will revisit that page when I have more experience.
• George Jackson's page. I have just edited my note on George Jackson's wikipedia page to sound more neutral, however that page needs a lot of work as a large portion of his biography is solely form the point of view of the same prison authorities who killed him. I don't think I have ever seen a wikipedia page with this problem before. Perhaps we can diversify the testimonies by including views from his teachers, collegues, fellow prisoners and family?
• Robert Conquest's page. It is entirely justified to call him a "propagandist" as he worked for over a decade for a secret government department founded to create propaganda. I do not think anybody will find this a controversial choice of words. Perhaps you can suggest a more appropriate term to describe someone who works for a secret government propaganda department?
• The Black Panther Party page Their armed copwatches were the core of the party's actions in their first year as a party, this is not controversial. The switch to focusing on social programs came after California's Mulford Act (Oakland being the founding branch of the panthers) banned open carry. I did not include a citation because it is common knowledge and there is no controversy over this. As for claiming that the FBI was the only factor in splits between party branches, I don't believe they were the only factor but if my writing looked as if I implied they were then I made a mistake and I will take another look.
• Harold Mackinder's page. It's interesting you bring this up but as far as I can find there aren't any historical documents that tell us whether or not Mackinder pulled the trigger with his own fingers or or whether it was perhaps botanist Douglas Saunders, but either way it was Mackinder's decision to have these African porters shot and his intense racial hatred was his motivation for doing so. When I first came to his wikipedia page it had 0 mention that he was responsible for the deaths of anyone, a fact I first learnt when I visited Oxford's Science Area and had to dive deeply to find citations for. But either way he murdered multiple innocent and unarmed people for very personal reasons, it is fair to call him a serial killer.

I'll read the homework you've given me on the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies. Again I am grateful that you took the time to engage with me and helped me become a better editor. BulgeUwU (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Information Research Department, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the edits you reversed and you are mistaken, nothing I added was not common knowledge.

You also reversed my edit mentioning that it was The Guardian newspaper who revealed the existance of the IRD, but the original article by the Guardian was already cited by someone else at the end of the same sentence.

Soon I will redo these changes with extra citations added.

BulgeUwU (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BulgeUwU, I was unable to find significant coverage of Marcel Cartier in reliable sources, so I've nominated the article for deletion. The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Cartier. Your input is welcome, the main point being discussed is whether it can be shown that the subject has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources or meets some other of the notability guidelines. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcel Cartier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes you are correct, this was a very embarassing mistake on my part. I'll fix it right away :)

BulgeUwU (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Uncomfortable Oxford, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thora Silverthorne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham Lazarus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For making an article on Jessie Eden. I'm so glad that a user got round to making an article on this significant historical figure! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so so much Spiderone, I had a lot of fun writing this but it took me 12 hours and now I am about to collapse. I will finish the article with extra details and sources tomorrow. BulgeUwU (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bet! I've added a few links to her article in other places so hopefully it makes her article easier to find and hopefully more people will stumble upon this and learn about her. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ralph Russell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammerton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 February 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. Thank you. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Cecil Rhodes) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Perak, you may be blocked from editing. Hzh (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the policy of WP:NPOV. "Administration" and "authorities" neutral terms, and don't attribute any particular value to those in control, e.g. "CPM administration" and "Dutch administration" used in the same article. You also need to provide sources when you want to change the content, the original content are sourced, your edits aren't. Hzh (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dorothy Kuya 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. Laplorfill (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BulgeUwU, I would strongly encourage you to take a breath of fresh air, and relax. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place that generates anger or hostility. While some users disagree with article content, we all need to remain level-headed and press forward (I am not accusing you of doing the contrary). That being said, my few encounters with you have been you repeatedly reverting edits (not just mine), in locations where you have added a decent amount of content. I am adding a note here in hopes that you will further familiarize yourself with WP:OWN and WP:GOODFAITH.
You add lots of content to a variety of articles—no doubt about that. But just because you have done so does not mean that you own the article. Others are free to edit as they choose (as long as they abide by WP guidelines/policies, obviously). But when others edit or partially revert your edits, it's not time to start an edit war or get defensive. Users are allowed to edit any page, whether you edit them or not. All users need to assume good faith, and I hope that you assume that other Wikipedia users are here to improve Wikipedia, not damage it. In regards to U.S. Army Esports, I randomly stumbled across the article, yet you accused me of having some bias and used that factor exclusively to dismiss my edits. You did not engage with me at all on the talk page. Please assume good faith, and please engage with folks on talk pages in a civil manner. You are making some great edits on here, but when a user tries to undo an edit(s) of yours, please do not just revert their edit and say "take it to the talk page." Sometimes there are some explicit policy violations that need to be remedied ASAP, sometimes it's not so urgent. If you take away anything from this, please assume good faith. We're all here to improve Wikipedia. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uncomfortable Oxford.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Graham Stevenson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malayan Emergency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iban.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anthony Carritt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the information in Ngo Dinh Diem's ​​article because it is source information and is a matter of research and evaluation, not conclusions. Please restore. Thanks. Football is very great (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not subjective, we only point it out for reference, it is an objective study and assessment, not a conclusion about the truth about Mr. Diem. Football is very great (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Football is very great", No I won't. - --BulgeUwU (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Gerald Templer. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a formal move discussion for Briggs' Plan. Since you initially opposed the suggestion to move it when originally brought up in July, I think you should be notified. --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Denzil Dowell at 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC), linked here, was highly inappropriate. You made an unsourced change to the article to say Dowell was murdered. In contrast, the official ruling was that it was "justifiable homicide". Murder is a crime. Wikipedia should not declare people guilty of major crimes unless a predominance of independent reliable sources can verify the accusation. In this, case, as far as I know, there are no sources at all that support your edit. You didn't even provide an edit summary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 13 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this was an error. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lmao how on earth did I managed to even do that. Sorry about that, BulgeUwU (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello. I'm glad you are editing, and you are clearly a productive contributor. However, your username is against the Wikipedia:Username policy. I would generally give the benefit of the doubt and assume perhaps that it refers to the Battle of the Bulge, but the uwu makes it unambiguously obscene. I suggest that you request a rename via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]