An automated process has detected that when you recently edited President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Trump administration.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting their edits to Crescent. They should be issuing edit COI requests. Their COI s palpable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't understand why my edit has been labeled as COI when I only updated the information with real, objective details as of the current date. I added accurate sources and citations where needed and reorganized the paragraph to improve clarity. I believe the update was necessary and factual. Thank you. Magicselection (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undoing your revisions; you've made a series of edits rewinding non-controversial factual edits to BLP pages with zero demonstrable justification. These pages are multiple years out of date on significant statewide legislative and election events.

If my username bothers you, take it up at COIN.

TXLegeWonk (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lmao Stugawts (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specific page numbers did you use for Gamboa, Laura (2023) and Martinez, Melissa (2024) on the Nayib Bukele article? PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that my edit of the article: Looting was reverted. In that edit I added instances of looting by international volunteers and the estimated number of museums looted by Russian forces. I was just wondering how those are considered WP:UNDUE as the lootings by the International Legion described several incidents, the looting by Czech volunteers also had some court revelivance, and the University of Miami's estimated number of museums looted by Russian forces was an addon to what the article mentioned about international observers reporting lootings by Russian forces. I would just like some clarification on what part is classified as WP:UNDUE so that I don't keep making the same mistake over and over again. Any comments, feedback, suggestions, and help is welcome. With best wishes, Lazarbeem (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Hans Kelsen when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. 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. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when multiple users repeatedly undo each other's changes on a page to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Instead of reverting edits, please stop editing the page and discuss on the talk page to create a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a Third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you break 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— if it looks like you intend to continue reverting. Jjjb94 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put some sources on the talkpage, pretty interesting stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You undid my revision to Intuit with no explanation. I added the Intuit Enterprise Suite under the current products. There is an entry about it on the talk page, with no objections. The product name and description are factual and descriptive. I cited several references from industry experts and publications. Did you see a problem with the description or citations? G J Lee (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've recently made serious changes to articles (additions or subtractions of hundreds of characters) without including an edit summary. You need to be using edit sunmaries more, at least for large changes, as here. In that case I reverted the edit on the basis of being a major edit with no summary, which is my prerogative per WP:BRD. I don't want to have to comb thru a large edit for value, correctness, appropriateness, and proper reffing if I don't even have a starting point of what has been done or at least intended. It's true that you aren't required to use edit summaries, but neither are we required to accept edits without them. So it'd probably be good all around if considered using them more. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thenightaway is clearly someone opposed to President Donald J. Trump, the duly elected 45th and 47th President of the United States of America. Wikipedia would improve if folks like Thenightaway didn’t object their opinion as fact. ~2026-7571 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, thenightaway clearly mentionned the reason of his edits. Kamranvxsida (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My apologies if this is a bit spammy, but I want to make sure you see it: we're currently waiting on input from you on the Vulcan Elements talk page. Hope to hear from you soon, but take all the time you need (or feel free to let me know if you'd rather exit the discussion).

Doomhope (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I must have been looking at a version of the article just before your edit while I was doing mine, never mind, it's in there now either way :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Liberty Financial, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emoluments Clause was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the narrative you originally included indicates a potential bias. The New York Times article makes no mention of the demolition of the East Wing nor does it refer to 'Donald Trump' demolishing the building. The article references many (notes several hundred) contractors - and Government contractors chase government business. If you do not like my edit (which did not change the underlying intent of the New York Times article reference), I would appreciate it if you would update the article to remove the unreferenced statements/subjective inferences that you included in your prior edit where the material was added. Happy to discuss further if you would likeSpaceHist65 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

good evening, i would like to discuss your changes made on the ASAN Service page. Kamranvxsida (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]