Hello, I'm Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to United States Forces Japan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also do you not realise the existence of the AV or AntiVandal tool. the edit has the AV tag on it. AV reverts the edit and marks it as minor but warns the user on the talk page. the primary reason i reverted your edit was the typo in the word flag.Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Horwennefer—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. Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to note that despite them not being pharaohs, the 21st Dynasty High Priests of Amun and God's Wives of Amun (ex: Herihor and Amenirdis I) also use the Pharaoh infobox for the titulary parameters. The new "secessionist" parameter doesn't really seem necessary when one can simply add "Secessionist Pharaoh" or "Rebel Pharaoh" in the role parameter of the infobox, just as the aforementioned groups of articles do for their respective titles. Star11308 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star11308: I agree that an additional parameter beneath the role parameter is excessive and superfluous. Hence I have ‘modularized’ the pharaoh parameter; see e.g. Ankhwennefer (pharaoh). I hope this change is acceptable to you. User23242343 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to remove the "pharaoh" label when not in use with the rebel parameter? As mentioned before, articles on people who used the royal titulary but wouldn't really be considered pharaohs use the infobox such as the High Priests of Amun, Divine Adoratrices and God's Wives of Amun. Star11308 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star11308: Ah, I thought they were still somewhat referred to as pharaoh. Unfortunately, no, that would not really be possible and I wouldn't support it either. If these people weren’t pharaohs (in whatever capacity) then they shouldn’t use the pharaoh infobox. However, note that Template:Ancient Egyptian royal titulary case exists and it can be used within virtually any infobox (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=1147504324). User23242343 (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. I wasn't aware of that template existing as a standalone template and I'll be sure to add it in when I get the chance. Star11308 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm actually doing it (over on Amenirdis I), I realize I have no idea what I am doing as I seldom really use the source editor besides adding links to articles in footers and such. I could use a hand, if you're available. Star11308 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star11308: Of course but unfortunately I'm a little bit busy right now; I will gladly take a look at it when I have the time. User23242343 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star11308: is that what you had in mind? User23242343 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you! I'm not really familiar with the source editor, and I was quite overwhelmed and confused trying to figure it all out myself. I'll put that into the other God's Wife and Adoratrice articles, though I'm a still bit weary when it comes to the High Priests of Amun due to how they depicted themselves as pharaohs and held sovereignty over Upper Egypt during the 21st Dynasty. Star11308 (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star11308: Unfortunately my knowledge of ancient Egypt is limited to the Ptolemaic Kingdom, so I can’t really help you out here. If the High Priests ruled in rebellion to the pharaohs, then perhaps the pharaoh infobox with the ‘rebel’ parameter can be used here. User23242343 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained and incomprehensible summaries are noted. and you use editing like a sandbox, but now it's censored today. If the source is not clearly presented, rollback may eventually be the answer. The contribution you made at Habsburg monarchy three edits has been cancelled. Please excuse me. I'm afraid I can't help it, depending on the editorial guidelines, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not like it's just a Wikipedia, but... In fact, such content and sources are determined by the Wikipedia itself, so verification is also carried out, so you have to choose carefully. Please refer to these below and be careful in the future.

1. Wikipedia:AntiVandal (AV)
2. Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

I want you to be aware that the editing done by the parties is wrong and that it violates the two policies. --Vichycombo (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vichycombo: I believe it is pretty evident that I'm not a vandal and that my changes do not constitute vandalism. Your reverts seem very abrupt and not really rooted in either logic or policy. Unfortunately I cannot ascertain what aspects of my changes exactly you oppose as your message is largely unintelligible. My claims are generally backed by RS included in the article body, if you believe this to be insufficient, you are welcome to add additional sources. User23242343 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Habsburg monarchy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: please elucidate your revert and enlighten me. I'm very excited to hear the reasoning of yet another editor that has no clue and loves to engange utterly unwarranted newbie biting and edit warring. User23242343 (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop persisting just because a newbie reverted you and drop the stick. User23242343 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been warned and reverted for a persistent pattern of disruptive editing by other established editors various times before me.

Why don't you explain the reason for disrupting several articles on Wikipedia, instead of accusing other users of biting you when they have simply asked you to stop doing that? GenoV84 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: What established editors? You mean the editor above with barely 300 edits that can't phrase a single articulate sentence and hasn't even put in the effort to explain their revert?

As I have explained in multiple edit summaries: the Habsburg monarchy is not in any way conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire and hence their is not a single reason why it should use its insignias or other data. User23242343 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the WP admins and other established editors who have left several warning messages on your talk page and have reverted your edits for the exact same reasons as I did, which is disruptive editing. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our WP policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page, which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your not engaging, your not discussing content. I've received a single sysop warning, which was baseless and has been reverted without opposition; all other warnings have no standing. It is insanely ironic that your bring up warnings, when you yourself have received a final warning and were nearly blocked for WP:PA. It is evident that you have no clue what the article is about and that you're instead Wikilawyering. I suggest you revert yourself or we will ask WP:ANI what they think of your exemplary conduct. User23242343 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your talk page, not mine. You have 4 warnings on your talk page and have been reverted by multiple editors, including one admin, and they were evidently right to do so. I suggest you to learn how to follow the WP rules and guidelines and contribute constructively to this encyclopedia instead of harassing other users who have been trying to help you. GenoV84 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow pinging Materialscientist and hoping that he sides with you, is an attempt at WP:canvassing. Materialscientist was right in a way where my edit summary explaining my contributions to the page could have been more elaborate; I've explained my changes in more detail in a subsequent edit, my changes have been discussed on the talk with a different editor, and a compromise has been found. Otherwise, my first warning was issued by a guy who believed minor edits containing edit summaries to be vandalism. The third warning was--as mentioned--made by a person that couldn't word a single articulate sentence and the 4th warning is from you.

So now let's talk content. Are there any specific things about my contributions you oppose? If yes, please--at long last--explain them. User23242343 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]