User talk:Assaultim

Carola Garcia de Vinuesa

Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Carola Garcia de Vinuesa, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. 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. Thank you! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

May 2026

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 Hinaupoko Devèze, 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. Thank you. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buchman, a link pointing to the disambiguation page German was added. 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) 21:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

bh carroll

Hello, please check the family link tree. You are not only confusing possibly his son "jr" but also his father was named "benejah" with an "e" which is making the wikipedia profile incorrect. Thanks! ~2026-33227-18 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please review below.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Carroll-2497 ~2026-33227-18 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please view the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives that I provided: https://sbhla.org/biographies/benajah-harvey-carroll/. That is Benajah Harvey Carroll's biography, where it is clearly states that he was the son of 'Benajah'. Thanks Assaultim (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the info. Please carefully review the names and dates. The website you referred to clearly has an error and is incorrect. Please don't revert back without another piece of evidence per changes. Benajah Carroll Sr's father is "Benejah" and his son is Benajah Carroll Jr. In accordance to his biography and book, he was converted at a "methodist" camp not a baptist. So several errors on this "website library" page. ~2026-34876-91 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also emailed the website on their error. Whoever put it together was trying to construct it in a way that was to their viewpoint instead of factual and textbook. ~2026-34876-91 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Warning for BLP violations

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before making any further edits to biographical content on Wikipedia. If you see a temp account removing allegations that a living person has committed a crime, as at Special:History/Santa Ana Unified School District, you should first consider whether the allegations are compliant with WP:BLPCRIME, and then consider whether restoring them would be compliant with WP:BLPRESTORE. In this case, it seems like there is a strong case that what the TA removed is not appropriate under BLPCRIME, whereas by reverting edits whose summaries raised concerns about a living person's reputation, you violated BLPRESTORE. Please be more careful in the future. I'll also ping @FutureFlowsLoveYou and Pyrrhic victor to make them aware I've given you this warning, but the edits Future reverted didn't have as clear edit summaries, while victor only reverted once, which is mitigating circumstances in both cases. Still, anyone should be very careful before restoring content to an article about criminal allegations against a living person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I understand the concern about BLP, and I agree that allegations involving living people need to be handled carefully.

My reasoning in restoring the material was not especially mysterious: the content was based on a named, reliable national source, concerned conduct allegedly connected to a district school employee acting in a school-related role, and included a public statement from the district itself. I understood the section as being about the district and its handling of a reported controversy, not as an attempt to create a biographical entry about Raya.

That said, I take your point that WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPRESTORE may impose a higher bar here than ordinary sourcing, particularly where criminal allegations against a living person are involved.

I stand by my decision that the allegation should be included, and it seems there is consensus among other users supporting this. I also reject the idea that the content of the TA's edit summary has any weight as they were inarticulate and claimed the source was false.

I will refrain from reverting the edit until I have established consensus on the articles talk page. Assaultim (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression the removals were because of the content describing a specific school rather than a district (Because of this edit summary), I have no intention in restoring since their clarification after that. Thanks for clearing it up further @Tamzin! FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the source as they were convicted of the alleged crime. That's a bit of blunder on my part. I should've read more carefully. Thanks for letting me know @Tamzin. Have a wonderful day - Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) In Solidarity 16:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Indians in Japan

Please check the talk page before you undo an edit. Thank you. Does anyone even check the talk pages? ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not remove the tourism section again without consensus. The content is now disputed, so the issue should be resolved on the article talk page rather than through repeated reverts.

I’m happy to discuss whether tourism is within the scope of the article, but there is not currently consensus for deletion of the section. Until consensus is established, the stable version should generally remain. Assaultim (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not really disputed though, it's outside the scope. No other aritcle about disporas in Japan has it so no reason for indians to have it. Then you have to add that section on all other dispora articles too and it doesn't really make sense. So no, if something is obviously wrong, it's enough to inform and remove. If some consensus form to include a large section on mars on an earth article doesn't make it right. It should be removed promptly. ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Your objection is noted, but one editor saying the content is “obviously wrong” is not the same as consensus. Since the removal has been challenged, the proper next step is to seek agreement on the article talk page, not to continue reverting.

I’m willing to discuss scope, weight, and whether the material should be trimmed or moved, but until consensus forms, repeated removal is not appropriate. Assaultim (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, then take it at the talk page. And everything doesn't actually need a consensus. Please make your opinion heard on the talk pages. Would be interesting seeing the argument for keeping the section. ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I have taken it to the article talk page, but please do not misrepresent this as if your removal is automatically correct. The content is disputed because I objected to the removal. Your personal view that it is “obviously wrong” is not consensus.

If you believe the section is outside the scope, make that case on the article talk page and let other editors weigh in. Do not keep treating your preferred version as settled while discussion is ongoing.

I am willing to discuss trimming, rewriting, or moving the material, but I do not accept unilateral blanking of a sourced section as the final outcome without consensus. Assaultim (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's kind of hostile to treat two removals as an edit war. Three removals is an edit war. You don't seem to be interesting in a discussion to be honest.

Quite frankly, doesn't feel like a constructive talk. At all ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I reject that characterization. I have taken the issue to the article talk page, explained my position, and made clear that I am open to compromise, including trimming, rewriting, or moving the material. Also, an edit war is not when 3 reverts have occurred, that is the point when users are blocked due to the Wikipedia: 3 revert rule.

Disagreement with your removal is not a refusal to discuss. The section is disputed, and the appropriate place to resolve that is Talk:Indians in Japan#Tourism section, with reference to sourcing, scope, and due weight.

I will keep my comments focused on the content issue. Please do the same and avoid speculating about my intentions. Assaultim (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the page carefully, it doesn't say that 100 percent of 3 revert cases gets blocked. That's just not the case. Usually, but not always.

Secondly, I don't care about your intentions. At all.

Thirdly, yes a discussion is better than no discussion. Both of us just want to improve the article of course. For me, I prefer it more focused, while you prefer it more verbose. ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not claiming that every 3RR report automatically results in a block. My point was that repeated reverting over disputed content is not the right way to resolve the issue, and that remains true.

Also, saying “I don’t care about your intentions. At all.” while accusing me of being hostile does not help the discussion. At this point, that is the hostile tone here. I have repeatedly said I am open to trimming, rewriting, or moving the material, and I have taken the issue to the article talk page where it belongs.

If your preference is a more focused article, then make the content-based case there. My preference is not “more verbose”; it is that potentially relevant material should be improved or merged rather than removed wholesale without consensus. Please keep the discussion at Talk:Indians in Japan#Tourism section focused on scope, sourcing, due weight, and wording. Assaultim (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Ai content

please don't restore content that has been agreed to be removed on talk pages. And don't restore ai content. Engage on the talk pages. ~2026-33106-38 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

please be active on the talk pages instead or restoring content that doesn't belong on pages. ~2026-33324-56 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello

What is ur #, need to discuss some incorrect facts in ur edits ~2026-36882-78 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Hello, I'm DonnieNova. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fakemink 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. Do not re-add "twerker" as an occupation. The "fakemink" is already noted as being stylized in all lowercase, and it is not necessary to use this stylization in the body DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 16:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ahahaha I didn't realise I had also reverted the twerker part back. Still should be written as fakemink though Assaultim (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not change the names of files in articles as you did to Origins of the Cold War. It breaks the link to the file. I have corrected the mistake. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "Show preview" button is right next to the "Publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)