Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eadred, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense留 00:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Irish Free State. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Southern Ireland (1921–1922), you may be blocked from editing. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will revert my edits related to the previous, next Mr. Information1409 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please review WP:OVERLINKING - FlightTime (open channel) 22:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking cities and states, they are common terms. Please review WP:OVERLINKING - FlightTime (open channel) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Francia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Wessex, you may be blocked from editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will add better sources. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS to know what is a reliable source before doing so. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Duchy of Normandy. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This time I did not done anything, I just undid vandalism, some IP put something in runes, that IP was reverted as well, and also, I restored as how it was in previous versions, as I found out I was wrong in that, that's all Mr. Information1409 (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Act that merged the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland took effect only at midnight, the very beginning of 1 January 1801 & not a second after. That's why the end date is 31 December 1800. If you wish to continue to contest this? Then please bring the topic up at a WikiProject of your choosing. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it, I see that you have more experience around here. I’m sorry if I caused problems.Mr. Information1409 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the topic up at a related WikiProject. You're not the only individual who's argued for 1 January 1801 as the end date. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, tell them please that I’m sorry, I will not change that ever again. My true apologies. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to join the discussion there. It's quite possible that 1 January 1801, will be considered the correct date. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct that contemporary speech in the North East and Cumbria is a regionalised form of London English, the Northumbrian and Cumbrian dialect articles specifically concern the moribund traditional dialects, which are derived directly from Northumbrian Old English. While most people in the North East and Cumbria would say 'stone' today, the articles specifically list traditional Northumbrian lexical and grammatical forms, such as NE 'styen' and Cumbrian 'steàn', and so focus primarily on these older dialects. Modern Northern English, as a whole, is covered in English language in Northern England.

OhAldyRow (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, actually that's what I usually do, but I will do my best in do it more frequently, thanks for letting me know that. Cheers! Mr. Information1409 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very seldom confused. Richard was born in England, where he lived until he was eight. In England those around him would have been mostly speakers of Norman French and English. His father was Angevin, but had spent many years in England and Normandy, we know he could understand spoken English and no doubt could speak in the Norman dialect to his Anglo-Norman aristocracy. There is also the matter of relative prestige, Norman French was the language of both a duchy and a kingdom, and as such would have considerably more prestige than he dialect of Anjou, a mere county. Richard's mother would have spoken the Langue D'Oc of Aquitaine. Richard wrote poetry in his mother's tongue and in Langue D'Oeil, and there is some evidence that he knew some Latin, he was multi-lingual. Your personal view on this matter has to give way to the views of cited written sources, of which there are now two, which say that the name 'Richard Quor de Lion' was Norman French. This is how Wikipedia works, written secondary sources trump all personal opinion by any and all editors. Urselius (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you for letting me know. Regards! Mr. Information1409 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spain and the American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Spanish War. 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) 18:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Philippine–American War, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I have reverted some recent changes you made. There is a discussion in progress between editors working towards WP:Consensus in this area at Talk:Philippine–American War § Official end of the war.. Please join that discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you made a mistake, I used a reference that cites a book, and that's reliable, because I was taught in school that the most reliable sites to cite are books, I just make that to not cause endless debate, correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for expressing your interest in the Philippine-American War. You recently made revisions to that article, 1231889305 and 1231893111, that have been the subject of on-going discussions. Your edit summaries, "Fixing" in both cases, were very vague. Please refer to WP:SUMMARYNO and RED FLAGS for guidance on edit summaries. Any thoughts you may want to share with regards to recent points of contention in this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'l keep it on mind. Now that you wrote me, do you agree with my edit that I wanted to make with reference? It was from a book Mr. Information1409 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to revision 1231893111, did Agoncillo claim that the Moros were a representative fighting force of the First Philippine Republic? If he did, what is the particular page number where this claim was made? I was recently corrected in my attempt to use that particular citation in support of a different assertion. The objection was that the citation was overly broad, covering 50 pages. I conceded that point, 50 pages was indeed far more pages than should have been necessary to support the claim being asserted. Chino-Catane (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spain and the American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Spanish War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Eric ^talk 20:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I will do my best Mr. Information1409 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Stop using edit summaries as talk page, and stop POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2024 (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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Information1409! Your additions to Norman Conquest have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you, and I greatly appreciate you letting me know my mistake. In conclusion, this type of references can be either be paraphrased or with limited quotations, for example: “The Normans didn’t have the intention of suppressing English, and French borrowings in English occurred from passive knowledge of the language rather than active use.” It can be like that? Mr. Information1409 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's still very very close to the wording in the source. Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more in my words then. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:OVERLINKing common terms and countries in Wikipedia articles. We do not link countries and peoples that native English speakers would be aware of and know. Continuing to reinsert links to such common terms is considered disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 16:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I will do my best in avoiding that. Happy New Year and I wish you blessings for this year! Mr. Information1409 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding your edit at Scotch-Irish, per WP:DABSTYLE "Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link". Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Matt, thanks for letting me know. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia operates by using reliable sources. Please note that an edit summary of you saying you believe something or that you read something is not a source. Many of your edits, while no doubt made with the best intentions, appear not to be supported by sources. Jeppiz (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I’m just doing my edits taking into account the consensus, advices from more experienced users and sources that clearly appear in pages, my latest editions in the Kingdom of England that you reverted were exactly based on what I initially stated here. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Middle Scots, 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt, I didn't add unsourced assertions, I just changed ancestors according to this source: "Such chronological terminology is widely used, for example, by Scottish Language Dictionaries Ltd. (Formally SNDA), Dr. Anne King Archived 16 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine of The University of Edinburgh Archived 18 August 2006 at the Wayback Machine and by The University of Glasgow Archived 18 December 2005 at the Wayback Machine. It is also used in The Oxford Companion to the English Language and The Cambridge History of English and American Literature.", which I found in the page "History of the Scots language" (Scots doesn't descend from Middle English, rather Old English).

Secondly, I'm aware that when making edits I have to give a reliable source, and if it's not needed like that case (just fixing ancestors) then I give it concisely in the edit summary, but what happened is that because there is a limited number of letters we can put in the summary then I said where I got the reference, and that's exactly what happened.

But upon a deep watch of this reference in the article of the Scots language: Alexander Bergs, Modern Scots, Languages of the World series, № 242 (Bow Historical Books, 2001), ISBN 978-3-89586-513-8, pp. 4, 50. "Scots developed out of a mixture of Scandinavianised Northern English during the early Middle English period.... Scots originated as one form of Northern Old English and quickly developed into a language in its own right up to the seventeenth century.", I started to question myself if the edit was wrong, and thankfully you reverted it and you messaged me in my talk page, if there is any confusion regarding the evolution of Scots, I will investigate it further and tell more deeply if I can the references when it comes to fixing things and not adding supposedly unsourced assertions but telling the exact link or source I get it, if that was my mistake that you are trying to make me see.

In conclusion, my supposed unsourced assertion isn’t because I didn’t tell the southern directly, rather I didn’t have the enough space to tell it, just the pase where I found it, that's all.

Regards! Mr. Information1409 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worthwhile working on concision, in your summaries and in talk. Also, read back what you write before posting as some of the above makes no apparent sense, I'm guessing because of typos or possibly predictive text (e.g. "I didn’t tell the southern directly"?). If you can't fit your explanation into an edit summary, that's a good indication you need to go to talk, particularly if the edit summary does not explain or justify the edit. Per WP:CIRCULAR, you must not use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source, not southern, I got confused, but thanks for knowing my willingness to improve. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down and take some care to check your facts before you edit. I keep encountering sweeping, ill-considered changes by you, at multiple articles, the latest only being these ones. Particularly, if you come across a longstanding, stable article, if the facts differ from your understanding, it is your understanding you should check first and only if and once you are very sure the article is wrong, check again and just maybe make a change. 23:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)