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

Cheers, friend. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 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

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

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

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

@ 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1948 Palestine war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Haifa.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Stop commenting on editors' motives and casting aspersions as you did here. If you believe someone is editing disruptively then bring it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. It does not belong on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I knew better than to do that and I apologise. I will bring it up at AE. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have the same concerns about two editors in that discussion. How should I proceed with filing that at AE? Two duplicate filings for each editor seems less than ideal. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It is better to have separate sections. They should not be duplicates, as there should be different evidence for both. I would be certain that you're not just dragging someone to AE over a content dispute, as well. You should be prepared with examples of disruptive behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Posts at noticeboards necessarily draw attention to behaviors of all those involved, including the original poster. BusterD ( talk) 17:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no clue how to do that, but believe it will be productive. Do you know? FortunateSons ( talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey, excuse me for not responding to this. I'm not sure how to do that either, nor do I have the interest to figure it out to be honest.

Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright, thanks FortunateSons ( talk) 06:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Benoît Saint Denis, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi IOHANNVSVERVS, Good day. Pls note that all mma fighters's fight record "method of fight" is as per Sherdog based on Wikipedia MMA guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 01:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your thorough explanation. I understand my edit was not based on RS but I wrongly thought that the existing text was not based on RS either. I was not aware about fight results being "per Sherdog based on Wikipedia MMA guidelines" and I appreciate you informing me of that.

Also, regarding the content itself, I didn't think a "face crank" was a thing, although per a reddit comment "If it feels like your spine is about to crack or your head's about to come off, it's a neck crank. If it feels like your face is being sheared in half [...] it's a facelock." So I've learned two things from this.

Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, IOHANNVSVERVS, good day. Wikipedia main policy is all about verification and not the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!. There are many interpretations from media, fans and announced for a fight method, as there are so many reverts and edit warrings among the editors, as such Wikipedia use Sherdog.com (the largest mma fight database) as the default fight method. (The source can always be found at the bottom of the fight record section). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It was simply a bad edit, not based on RS.

I'm aware of the relevant policies but was not aware that "the source can always be found at the bottom of the fight record section". Thanks again for taking the time to explain these things and for this additional information.

- IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 04:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

All is good. I am a regular experienced MMA editor in English Wikipedia and if you have any question regarding MMA related article, kindly pop to my talk page as I am here to help. Thank you for your contribution. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 04:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Good to know, and it's good to see that MMA pages are being well watched over. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You have violated 1RR on 1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight. Please undo your second recent revert or it will be reported to admin. Mistamystery ( talk) 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah, you're right. My bad. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 05:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I still think your edit should be reverted though, could you explain the rationale for your edit? You did not explain it in your edit summary, saying only "NPOV". I don't see how describing the 1948 Palestinian expulsions as "violent" is inaccurate or violates NPOV. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 05:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I apologise for unjustly accusing you of not informing the other editor of the AN discussion. I had seen, but misread, the link you left, which was my fault alone. ——Serial Number 54129 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks, if you could strike it that would be ideal. Also I'm more concerned about your allegation of edit warring, which hasn't been explained. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Any response to this @ Serial Number 54129? IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 16:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello! I filed for a dispute resolution regarding the dispute on Mukokuseki which you gave a 3rd opinion on. Please provide your perspective here. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Shifa Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special Rapporteur.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fixed. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 04:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 01:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you do not wish to participate in this case, tell me and I will remove you as a party. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 01:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notice, I made a statement. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 04:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Alexfotios ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I've been very impressed with you on multiple occasions recently, for taking a very even-handed approach to conduct disputes in a very contentious topic area - an ideal that the rest of us would do well to try to live up to. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply