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

Very funny but I'm good thanks. BulgeUwU ( talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, BulgeUwU, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a "Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{ unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
3. Your requested new username cannot already be in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{ unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice.

- gadfium 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Gadfium Can someone explian what exactly was offensive about this name? I can't work it out. Jagmanst ( talk) 04:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jagmanst: See also Captain Eek's message above. Bulge could mean several things, but 'cute bulge' is obscene (see uwu) and the user's reply to Eek did not offer any alternative explanation. Since they have changed their username, this is no longer an issue.- gadfium 05:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jagmanst and @ Gadfium. Bulge was meant as a reference to the Battle of the Bulge, a key loss for Nazi Germany, and Uwu was meant to express glee at the sight of fascists being defeated. Half the pages I have created on wiki were biographies of influential anti-fascists. I was hit with the block and order to change my username after getting into a disagreement with a fellow editor. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 19:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

If you had replied to Captain Eek with that explanation, the unpleasantness could have been avoided.- gadfium 19:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

The History Wizard of Cambridge ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Changed username

Accept reason:

Thank you. Happy editing. gadfium 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–– FormalDude ^talk 06:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mass killings under communist regimes is under discretionary sanctions stipulating (among other things) that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article," per the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page, a restriction that you have blatantly violated ( [2], [3]). Please self-revert this violation or it may be reported to WP:AE, where you could be sanctioned by an administrator. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

At this point Mass killings under communist regimes has such a terrible reputation for editors edploiting wikipedia's guidelines as a tool for silencing others that I welcome the attention of more administrators. I edited wikipedia for over a year with few problems until the very hour I first made edits to that terrible page I was falsly flagged for breaking wiki guidelines and forced to change my username, with my ban (the first I have ever had on wikipedia) lasting almost a week. A quick look at the talk page shows many other editors who have had similar experiences. So I'm not at all surprised by your bullying tactics. For any administrators readng this TheTimesAreAChanging has the worst habit of randomly undoing people's work, upholding blogs and historians which vae already been widely discredited by other historians such as infamous Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and making it near impossible to make any positive change. I'm considering just deleting my account because I know that people like TheTimesAreAChanging can successfully tie me up in a web of complex jargon and a machine gun of tricks and accusations that will waste everyones time as a method of blocking change. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, AE it is, then... TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 02:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is The History Wizard of Cambridge. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Failing to abide by the 1RR on Mass killings under communist regimes per this discussion at AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ( by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Thanks for uploading File:Bill 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) 18:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Edgar Frederick 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) 18:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, The History Wizard of Cambridge. Thank you for your work on Liesel Carritt. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, Little Edens, is not suitable as written to remain published. Aside from notability concerns, it appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trevor Carter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Museum of Oxford you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Museum of Oxford for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 ( talk) 01:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Trevor Carter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trevor Carter for comments about the article, and Talk:Trevor Carter/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 16:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Just stopping by to add my own congratulations. Are you interested in doing GA reviews, by the way? There's always a backlog, and we can always use more reviewers. It's particularly a good idea to review if you plan to bring more articles to GA status, since the sort order on the nominations page means those who review more get higher up the list. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Amazing news, I cannot believe I earned my first GA article!! Hopefully this will be the first of many, I feel as if this experience has forced me to look at my own work through a more critical lens and helped me become a better editor. This experience should help me speed through the process when someone reviews my next GA nominated article.

Also, I did not know that helping with the backlog of GA reviews meant that my own nominations would appear higher on the list. NGL that is a very powerful motivator. In that case I'll try complete at least one GA review by the end of the month. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Communism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag. 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) 06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Billy Strachan.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) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I am sorry that your FAC did not go as expected. However, I hope that the comments you got help you improve your approach to creating Wikipedia content. It's great that you created the article for Strachan which otherwise Wikipedia readers would not know existed. Let me know if I can help you with any questions about sourcing and referencing.

( t · c) buidhe 08:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ Buidhe, My first FAC may have failed but I still believe the article is GA material so I'll try there. Cheers for the goat. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 17:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

If you want to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet, you should do it at WP:SPI, not WP:AN. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I did not know that SPI existed, sorry for creating clutter. I am learning to use SPI now. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 01:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Well no need to apologize, to be sure -- the WP administrative/bureaucratic infrastructure is vast :). SPI is challenging to use because of all the structured templates, but it looks like you managed more or less. And of course the case you're making is very straightforward, hopefully the block will come quickly. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 01:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thankyou :) The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 01:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CptJohnMiller ( talk) 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A note to The History Wizard of Cambridge, CptJohn Miller has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, and is possibly the same person who posted some disgusting things (now revdelled) at your talk page (although I'm not completely certain they're the same person). Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thankyou @ Nythar, I'm glad this horrible situation has been resolved. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 01:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I've seen you mentioning me at AN and SPI. You said that Militaryfactchecker was banned on the 2nd June by admin @Arado Ar 196, so here are some correction: I'm not an admin, I just closed the thread ( diff). When the matter is resolved, anyone can do it. Militaryfactchecker was blocked indeff by admin Cullen328 (then block was upgraded by checkuser later). To prevent any such confusion in the future, you can check block logs (like that one). Have a nice day! a!rado🦈 ( C✙ T) 04:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, you can enable "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in preferences (though it shows only most recent block). a!rado🦈 ( C✙ T) 04:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that, I'm still inexperienced with a lot of the wikipedia backroom functions. Thanks for the clarification. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 04:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've started an RfC on Ben Roberts-Smith talkpage that you may be interested in. AlanS ^talk 07:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Interesting, thankyou for keeping me informed. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 10:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 109.157.92.138 ( talk) 08:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Pay no attention to this IP; it's just Militaryfactchecker harassing you again (per my comments here). Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

LMAO this must be the 5th time that militaryfactchecker has been bothering editors related to pages like Murder of Agnes Wanjiru, the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the British Army Training Unit Kenya. He and his sock accounts have been harassing me for a month. Thankyou for helping uncover enough evidence to get his latest IP bocked. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping an eye on Murder of Agnes Wanjiru. Sorry for the trouble with that sock. Keep up the good work! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

On 6 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trevor Carter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that British communist leader Trevor Carter was the stage manager for the first British-Caribbean carnival, held in St Pancras Town Hall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trevor Carter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Trevor Carter), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruchell Cinque Magee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchell Cinque Magee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b ( talk) 00:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. ( t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, The History Wizard of Cambridge – it might be useful to find a source deemed more "reliable" than the Daily Mail. In that connection, this is what The Telegraph said on 8 November 1994 in their short piece "Lenny's hero". Proscribe ( talk) 10:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Ivon Jones you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey Alien, this is very exciting. The David Ivon Jones article has been begging for a GA review for a long time. I look forward to working with you :) The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Billy Strachan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee ( talk) 22:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Billy Strachan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Billy Strachan and Talk:Billy Strachan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee ( talk) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

		The Special Barnstar
		The reactions of the vast majority of editors facing community sanction at ANI run the gamut from stony silence to rabid denials to bomb throwing. You, by contrast, are recognizing where you messed up, are publicly resolving to do better, and asking for the community's help in achieving that. That deserves notice, and has certainly earned my respect. Ravenswing 12:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cheers Raven. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 04:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Billy Strachan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Billy Strachan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Per the consensus of this discussion at ANI you are now banned from the topics of autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism, broadly construed. If you have any questions about this sanction feel free to reach out to me on my talk page, or ping me here. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I regret coming here on the heels of your topic ban with unpleasant news, but every article of yours I have worked on is filled with too-close paraphrasing, plagiarism and some instances of copy-pasted WP:COPYVIO. Please spend some time reviewing those pages; user:Victoriaearle/Tutorial and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches may also be helpful. We can't just switch up a few words in a sentence; we have to write in our own words. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article David Ivon Jones you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:David Ivon Jones for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry to hear about your topic ban. I obviously disagreed with it. I think it is a scandel that an editor who in good faith sought feedback for GA review would face this kind of response, when there were far better and more collegiate ways to address editorial issues.

Looking through your talk page, I see you have faced a lot of unpleasant encounters on wikipedia. This in conjunction with you apologising to me on my talk page for a perfectly normal interaction has made me somewhat concerned, on whether you have internalised some of the incessasnt and unfair criticism you have received.

I hope you rebound from this and can focus your energies in spaces that treat you better. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's no worry, there are a million more topics that I am not banned from so it's not the end of the world.

I've learnt the guidelines of wiki through trial and error and I don't remove anything from my talk page, so it tends to give a more negative impression of my experience on wikipedia then I've actually had. I've had far more positive experiences with fellow editors than negative.

There is also a silver lining to this. In an attempt to vindictively find further faults with my work, some editors have actually ended up improving many of the wiki pages I created. Ironically there has been more interest in my work following my topic ban then there was when I was requesting GA/FA/Peer reviews.

I will ease off wiki for a while to give myself time to focus on work, read up more on the inner working of wiki, and eventually return as a Jailhouse lawyer. Thankyou again for reaching out to me. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 20:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, The History Wizard of Cambridge. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Little Edens, 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) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello The History Wizard of Cambridge, I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Manifesto Press, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manifesto Press.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TartarTorte}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tartar Torte 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, The History Wizard of Cambridge. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Little Edens".

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. When 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!} 16:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply