Pisarz12345

It's time you learned that the full stop should appear before the reference, not after. It would be a good idea, too, to make sure that you are not duplicating information already in the article, as you just did in the case of John Donne and George Herbert. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please stop using this same clunky wording across a whole range of articles, replacing better wording with your preferred text. Also please learn about where references go - they go AFTER the punctuation, not before. Your edits are starting to look like spam. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pope Gregory I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commemoration. 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) 05:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding information about veneration. You are here for a year now, - here are two secrets to more happiness: write an edit summary for each edit, and follow WP:BRD which is a good idea to avoid edit-warring. It translates to bold-revert-discuss, and means: when a bold edit is reverted, don't revert back, but begin a talk page discussion. Even if you don't think an edit was bold, the revert shows you that at least one other does. Don't revert back but propose your edit on the talk page and try to find consensus for the addition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with Gerda Arendt. Edit summaries help a lot. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pope Paschal I, 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. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pope Paschal I, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope Paschal I. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Pope Paschal I, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pisarz12345, you've already received a 3 revert warning in the section above. If you continue to edit war to restore poorly sourced content without first achieving consensus on the article talk page, you will be blocked from editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 1 June 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: ). Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hildegard of the Vinzgau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English-language hymnals by denomination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Arnold.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nicholas II of Russia. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of dictionaries by number of words, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Frisian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Pisarz12345, the other problem is you failing to WP:COMMUNICATE. This may well be the last partial block you get before facing a sitewide one of considerable length (up to and including of an indefinite duration). Please do better. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be unblocked, please follow the instructions above. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pisarz. Don't know if it matters to you, I just saw that you've contributed to that article. I'll only bother you this one more time. If you want, you can find the current discussion here. It's a bit stuck. I'm not a native speaker and don't know what feels like being the right variant in your area and community, and the online available data is not always clear or the best criterion. Thanks and all the best, Arminden (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Salmer 1973, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Pisarz12345. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salmer 1973, 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) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Anglican Liturgical book has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Pisarz12345. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Salmer 1973".

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. If 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!} 21:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Photius, Metropolitan of Moscow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not blind, I can read. So, please stop repeatibg the same argument against a policy. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are blind Pisarz12345 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Calendar of saints (Church in Wales) 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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:International bodies of Reformed denominations (currently existing) has been nominated for merging. Please see the discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gerasimos Palladas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of South American saints, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sawyer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please stop using unreliable sources like you did in this edit[1]. heiligenlexikon.de, santiebeati.it, gcatholic.org, etc are not WP:RS and using them is disruptive not to mention that it creates a massive amount of work for other editors who have to come through and remove them all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pierre Lambert de la Motte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayutthaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William of Hirsau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blessed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of cheese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cheese ball.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodore Edward Dowling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Коллега, прекратите вносить в месяцеслов ещё не прославленных Церковью святых. Даже если у нас с Вами нет никаких сомнений, мы не имеем права выдавать желаемое за действительное. Я знаю, что информацией из этого раздела Википедии пользуются люди в том числе и для общественного богослужения. Не нужно их подставлять! Не нужно бежать впереди паровоза! Имейте терпение.

И ещё один совет. Вы стали вносить новые имена, ссылаясь при этом на "Древо". Но "Древо" - источник компилятивный, в материалах этого ресурса всегда можно найти ссылки на ОРИГИНАЛЬНЫЕ источники на разных языках. При наличии таких ссылок тащить в англоязычную Вики русские - просто неприлично. Александр Васильев (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

NB! It is strongly SUPRESSED by Wiki rules to delete the content of User talk pages! - Александр Васильев (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

P. S. You are continuing to break rules of Wikipedia. Your case is now lodged to Admin's court. - Александр Васильев (talk) 10:32, 20 July 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. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

See this link for the ANI discussion, titled "Reporting user Pisarz12345". You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polydore Plasden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mason.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:9th-century Frankish writers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:9th-century Frankish saints has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Deacon 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; read about 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.
Since you already violated 3RR, I'll give you a couple hours to self-rev. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I used sourced information, from official sourced of orthodox church. Pisarz12345 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2023 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: ). Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

диакон - http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5077255.html Pisarz12345 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pisarz12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I used official sourced from orthodox patriarchate.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Source Pisarz12345 (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Don't place your request in the smaller section header box- place it in the larger edit window. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I used sourced information, from official sourced of orthodox church: Russia, Ukrainian, Serbia, Romanian, Polish and Belarus, rank distinction is one of most important qualities of clergy. Pisarz12345 (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Jaczemir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks notability, fails WP:NNAME.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jaczemir 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/Jaczemir 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.

AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Lutheran theologians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I note that you edited the article on the English Third Succession Act of 1543/4 to indicate that it was repealed by both the See of Rome Act of 1554 and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9. May I please ask you to tell me exactly how those two later acts had any bearing of any kind on any of the three Henrician Succession Acts, particularly the Third Act? Can you please quote a clause from either supposedly-repealing act that bears directly on the royal succession? I wonder if perhaps you have not actually read the entire text of the three Succession Acts, the Second Act of Repeal of 1554, and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 and are therefore simply mistaken about their precise content?

The See of Rome Act (properly styled The Second Act of Repeal, 1& 2 Phil. & M. c.8) and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 (1 Eliz.1 c.1) both addressed only issues of the governance of the English Church. Those acts said absolutely nothing about the royal succession. Conversely, the Third Succession Act said absolutely nothing about church governance. The Succession Act addressed only the royal succession, specifically who was "in" and who was "out," and gave Henry VIII the power to limit the ability of his daughters to succeed him on the throne.

Why would Parliament repeal the Third Succession Act of 1543/4, given that it gave Mary a statutory claim to the English crown despite her statutory illegitimacy? Repeal of the Third Succession Act would have made the Second Succession Act the governing statute on the royal succession, and that would in turn have confirmed the late Jane Grey Dudley as the legitimate statutory successor of Edward VI, followed by Jane's younger sister Katherine. Repeal of the Third Succession Act would have dislodged Mary from the throne she had only recently ascended!

Similarly, if the Royal Supremacy Act of 1558/9 also repealed the Third Succession Act, wouldn't that be redundant, since (you claim) the Second Act of Repeal had already repealed the Third Succession Act? And again, if the Royal Supremacy Act of 1558/9 did indeed repeal the Third Succession Act, Elizabeth would have had no claim to the throne, since she was removed from the succession by the Second Succession Act, and repeal of the third would have resulted in the Second becoming the governing statute once again.

In short, your edit is not factually correct. I have therefore reverted it. I am a retired historian with a PhD in Tudor History. The Tudor royal succession is one of my areas of specialization. DesertSkies120 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir,

According to Chronological table of the Statutes, 1235-2001 "Succession to the Crown Act":

• s. 7 was repealed by See of Rome Act 1554 (1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 8 s. 5 [s. 21, Ruff]); repealment of s. 7 was confirmed by Act of Supremacy 1558 (1 Eliz. 1. c. 1 s. 4 [s. 13, Ruff]);

• ss. 9-11 were repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 125),

The residue was repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 62).

Thank you for your attention and the time spent reading my post. Pisarz12345 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected. Section VII of the "Act concerning the establishment of the King's Majesty's Succession" of 1543/4 does indeed address the issue of papal allegiance, but only to the extent that it (Section VII) reiterates the terms of the Act of Supremacy of 1534 for the purpose of confirming the validity of Henry's annulment from his first wife Katherine. But Section VII has no direct bearing on the succession itself.

And while I did not challenge your inclusion of the Statute Law Revision Acts of 1863 and 1948, those acts repealed only the stipulations in Sections IX and X of the Succession Act that declared it treasonous to refuse to take an oath supporting the Royal Supremacy and the Third Succession Act.

I stand by my edit since neither the Second Statute of Repeal nor the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 addressed the fundamental provisions of the Third Act of Succession. Those fundamental provisions were all directly related to who could and could not succeed Henry VIII. I believe the relevant table in this article should be left in its original form as it appeared pre-edits, for the sake of simplicity and logical clarity. The Second Act of Repeal and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 repealed only certain highly specific sections of the Third Succession Act and did so without repealing any of the content of the Third Succession Act directly related to the succession itself. One might expend hundreds of words if one wanted to include in the relevant table every act that had any degree of indirect and tangential bearing on the Third Succession Act. Wikipedia does not need to be so complicated and exhaustive in its information. But that's just my opinion. Wikipedia has never been inclined to logical clarity, thanks to the open-editing policy.DesertSkies120 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Why are you adding the template Toryism to a lot of random pages? Please stop immediately. Ogress 01:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Toryism - Related topics:

• Carlism
• Chouans
• Cristeros
• Conservatism
• Distributism
• High Tory
• Legitimism
• Loyalism
• Miguelism
• Pink Tory
• Reactionary
• Red Tory
• Spanish American royalism
• Sanfedismo
• Tory socialism
• Traditionalist conservatism
• Ultra-Tories
• Vendéens
• Viva Maria
• Veronese Easte

Pisarz12345 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thank you for adding Category:Anglican liturgists to Thomas Cranmer! I noticed that you frequently do not use edit summaries for your edits. I used to do the same, assuming that minor and uncontroversial edits generally didn't necessitate explanation. However, edit summaries are an exceptional tool that facilitate cooperation, prevent misunderstanding, and indicate editor specialties. I'd encourage you to use them going forward. Thank you for your work, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elisabeth, Bertrade and Mathilde.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Catechism. 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. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply