Hello Aceusa. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 10:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

	Hello Aceusa. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 06:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told a number of times before, but you are still adding messages to talk pages without signing. Please take notice. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so adamant in creating UFC 157. I thought it was strange and unjust how it was the only numbered UFC event without its own article. Hopefully now it will be allowed to stay. Make91 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And it will stay. Theepicwarrior (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Barak Obama. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DUCKISJAMMMY. I noticed that you made a change to an article, UFC 205, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Logan Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walking Dead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aceusa (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UFC 213, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentina Shevchenko. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2003–04 Los Angeles Lakers season have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aceusa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bitcoin, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to HuffPost. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aceusa, Greeting to you. Please note that when a bout is announced by the press, content and sourced are added to the "Announced bout" section. When the bout shown on UFC.com fight card, then the content from the "Announced bout" section is removed and place in the fight card section. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at University of California. Arbitrarily altering financial information without providing or citing a source. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 01:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the endowment on University of California be the same as University of California, San Diego? Aceusa (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aceusa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aceusa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at UFC 245. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You have been informed that only when the "announced" bout has shown in UFC.com fight card then the "announced bout" can move to fight card section. pls do not do it again before checking the status in UFC.com fight card prior editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hunter Biden. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Hunter Biden, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Page Six is a gossip column and is not considered a reliable source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2020 (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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Avenged Sevenfold discography, you may be blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hunter Biden, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did I vandalize the page? I used reliable sources. Aceusa (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Joey Diaz, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. As others have pointed out to you above, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aceusa, pls do not change the headliner name as it is based on UFC.com event page - see here. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avenged Sevenfold; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Binho24 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Avenged Sevenfold. 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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've been blocked for edit warring before, you really should know not to do this by now. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:33, 17 November 2020 (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) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to List of National Basketball Association career 3-point scoring leaders has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2009 SEC Championship Game into Game of the Century (college football). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again at this article, where you copied text from 2010 BCS National Championship Game without the required attribution. Please be sure to follow this important step each and every time you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another. DanCherek (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that in this edit to Game of the Century (college football), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mr.weedle (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aceusa! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Linkin Park several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Linkin Park, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please take the dispute to the talk page.. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give you the standard edit warring warning but then saw you've already been blocked for edit warring...three times? And now you're on the verge of a fourth one. Is there something about the concept you don't understand? Anything I can do to make it clearer? At the very least, make yourself familiar with WP:BRD. Following it could help keep you out of trouble... Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2008 in film‎ without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 27 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Knitsey. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2024 United Kingdom riots without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Knitsey (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is first partner of California. Do not change without consensus. cookie monster 755 13:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to UEFA European Championship, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Annh07 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SantiagoCoelho. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ed Gein have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SantiagoCoelho (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, you may be blocked from editing. BlockArranger (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Meters (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously at a level 4 warning for adding this. Switching to dumping it into various talk pages is not going to work any better than adding it directly to the articles. Meters (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How long is indefinitely? Aceusa (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can provide us with a convincing unblock request that constructively addresses your conduct which has caused you to be repeatedly blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I meant to use the talk pages as a discussion to add the Epstein info. It was automatically deleted by a moderator for 'inappropriate discussions,' instead of a legitimate explanation. Please unblock me. Aceusa (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Youtube videos are not considered a reliable source. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2025 (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.

Aceusa (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are YouTube videos generally unreliable, the one you've been using is linked to James O'Keefe! "[D]eceptively edited videos and information gathering techniques to attack mainstream media organizations and progressive groups ... produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations; the recordings are often selectively edited to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywatcher68 (talk • contribs)

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

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

---

Request reason:

From now on I will not vandalize, edit war, or post unreliable sources. Aceusa (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the lengthy discussion below, and explicitly on the basis of asilvering's terms. There will be no further chances. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aceusa (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit-warring on and off for five years. You're just getting around to promising to stop now after an indefinite block, the fourth in a series of escalating terms? Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please Aceusa (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban from post-1992 US politics is necessary(which would include Epstein). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you should not expect to be able to return to your previous behaviors and expect to repeatedly be unblocked. You must instead familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and I would suggest, some essays, so that you are sure to understand the culture and purposes of Wikipedia. It's no fun kicking people out and neither is cleaning up after them. I am sure you will be able to find something you can instead improve in the intended way, which will allow you to take pride in work that is appreciated. BlockArranger (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand. Aceusa (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please Aceusa (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Aceusa, there's a bit of a backlog of requests - this is definitely visible in the queue, so an admin will get to you as soon as they can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! Aceusa (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tried four times to insert claims that Jeffrey Epstein was a CIA informant ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and were given a level 4 warning. You then waited a couple of weeks and tried to insert the same claim into a different article ([5]) and were warned again. You then waited a month and attempted to insert the claim that Jeffrey Epstein was both a CIA informant and a Mossad informant into five different articles ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) and were given a level 3 warning. You then immediately dumped the CIA informant claim onto three different talk pages ([11], [12], [13]) and were blocked. You really think we're going to believe your unblock request that this was a good faith attempt to discuss the claim? Meters (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever spam again, let alone make an editing error, you may permanently ban me. I promise I will not do either ever again. Aceusa (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that in case you are allowed to come back and are not topic banned, you should perhaps still consider taking a break from politics. You have a lot of opportunity to prove your skills and comprehension of WP:ETIQUETTE and other formal and informal rules in contributing to other subjects. BlockArranger (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will take a break from all politics. Aceusa (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create a new account but it just says my current account is blocked. Please help! Aceusa (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is going to help you create a new account. You are blocked. You are not allowed to edit using any account or IP/temporary account. That would be sockpuppetry and block evasion. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCKEVASION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't I just create a new account with a different IP address? Aceusa (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again, You are not allowed to edit using any account or IP/temporary account. Meters (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Aceusa Blocks are made to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia. Every time you made a problem edit, a volunteer had to fix that in their own personal time. You were told that your edits were wrong and you ignored that and carried on, over and over and over again. It's not acceptable for you to do that and it's not fair on other people.

It also means that it's very difficult to trust that you won't cause further problems if you're unblocked.

• If all of those earlier warnings didn't work, why is this any different?
• Do you really understand what the problem was and what you should do if you encounter the same situation in future?
• If you're unblocked and do the same thing again, someone else will have to fix it when they could be doing literally anything else?
• Do you really understand Wikipedia policies if you suggested making a new account right after being asked to read WP:SOCK?

I know this sounds harsh, but this is what the admin who considers your request will be thinking.

It's now up to you, to persuade them otherwise.

Just saying "I won't do it again, promise!" isn't going to be enough, you need to show a proper understanding of what you did, why it was disruptive and how to act in future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceusa, I'm generally pretty happy to give out last-chance unblocks, but I'm not excited to see that you've tried to evade this block by creating a new account. Did you end up creating a new account? If you did, now would be the time to fess up to that. -- asilvering (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but Wiki would not let me. Aceusa (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Apologies for the long post, but I feel this is important to say.

Hopefully you can see why admins are worried that you're not taking time to learn how Wikipedia works before doing something, especially when it comes to the really important stuff and you've already been warned.

Both with the politics/BLP's and the block, you were given links to important information (policies and guidelines) that told you what you should and should not do. You either didn't read or didn't understand them (probably the former).

In the case of the Epstein article, you ignored many, many warnings and it's very hard to believe that you didn't understand that you shouldn't have been doing what you were in fact doing. Then you continued to do it over many days and many attempts.

Look at this Talk page and all the warnings you've had. See how many times people asked you to stop doing something, but you ignored them and carried on anyway - that's not ok and it has to stop.

Then the block notice explains that you shouldn't be creating new accounts. The system told you that you couldn't create a new account. Then you asked if you could create a new account even after all of that.

If you're unblocked and you see a warning message of any sort, you absolutely must stop to read the entire message and any blue-linked pages before you do anything further. If someone took the time to give you important information, you should always read it. If it shows up automatically, it's programmed to be there for a very good reason.

It looks like you've agreed to a topic ban on Politics and I think that would be a very good idea, but you definitely need to change your behaviour and learn how Wikipedia works, because I'm worried this isn't just restricted to one topic. Your Talk page shows a long history of edit warring, lack of sourcing and other BLP concerns.

Please, if you're unblocked, be a lot more careful ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Aceusa (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something, I guess. @Acroterion, I think the cleanest way to play this is to do a last-chance unblock now, no conditions, just the understanding that this really is the last chance, and that any further misconduct really is a block for good, no standard offer, no nothing. @Aceusa, do you understand? -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand. Aceusa (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of redemption, I will unblock on the basis of your acceptance of asilvering's terms. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]