Historianengineer

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wulong bohaiensis (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zanhe was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wulong bohaiensis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Wulong bohaiensis, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Historianengineer! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

After you merge the material from the draft into the article, I'll request a WP:HISTMERGE at Wulong bohaiensis so the credits will properly show that you created the article first (or you can do it yourself). Cheers! -Zanhe (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I did a content merge and edit. Added a note at Talk recognizing that two versions were merged. Did not use WP:HISTMERGE . David notMD (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As for your draft, you can ask that it be deleted, or delete all the content and leave it as an empty draft. If the latter, it will be deleted six months from now. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've requested a histmerge, which has been completed by an admin. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Zahne, you are polite human. I am glad to gain own my right. Thank you very much.

Your thread has been archived

Hi Historianengineer! You created a thread called History Merging at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caput Mundi. 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. Adakiko (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you your message.

Firstly, i wrote Constantinople subtitle in Caput Mundi article with sources. I am exposed to vandalism, you must intervene Vasltunnma's vandalism. Please see Caput Mundi article for Constantinople text. Vasltunnma wants to write about that, he/she must add source. Otherwise it is a vandalism. I dont edit anymore, you must protect my right. -Historianengineer (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)-

Discuss it on talk:Caput Mundi. See wp:OWN. If it is wp:vandalism (narrow definition, BTW), then report it on wp:AIV. Do Not Edit War. Adakiko (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Vasltunnma and User:Historianengineer reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ). Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Caput Mundi. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I am exposed to vandalism on Caput Mundi article by Vasltunnma. Informations, i added by using sources, were erased by this user. I am blocked, Vasltunnma actually is guilty. Please see Caput Mundi article, i proved Constantinople is regarded as Caput Mundi for example Edmondo de Amicis (The well-known Italian literator) said capital of the world for Constantinople. https://www.rezensionen.ch/istanbul-hauptstadt-der-welt/3737407002/.

I am hard done. Best regards

-Historianengineer (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)-

Having two people repeatedly reverting each other does not make the article's content "correct". It just loads up the wp:page history. Procedures are in place to address vandalism, unsourced edits, and other issues. You can ask at the wp:teahouse what to do in these cases. Adakiko (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no vandalism here, just a content dispute in which, despite warnings, neither editor would stop reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't resume edit warring to add Constantinople to the Caput Mundi article. The article is already in a poor state, and adding more cities with weak sourcing isn't improving it. I invite you to join the ongoing conversations on the talk page. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 07:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Like Edmondo De Amicis a novelist said Constantinople as Caput Mundi. In addition the other source is an article that implies Constantinople as Caput Mundi. I added two sources, not single opinion. Istanbul was capital of the three empires and for long time it was the most populated city in the world. Why dou you di hysteric crisis towards true informations. -Historianengineer (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)-