User talk:Stavru
Add topic| This is Stavru's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Stavru, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 5)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Stavru/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.
 |
Hello, Stavru!
Having an article draft 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! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 20:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 7)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Stavru/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.
May 2026
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Men's rights movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Men's rights movement, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Men's rights movement was changed by Stavru (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.8858 on 2026-05-15T06:24:36+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Men's rights movement. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Men's rights movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating 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 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Men's rights movement, you may be blocked from editing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- Stavru, you need to start being more collaborative and use articles' talk pages for discussion about disputed changes. You cannot make such wholesale changes without consensus and delete sourced content without any valid rationale. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Stavru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Men's rights movement does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
June 2026
[edit]
Hi Stavru! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Men's rights movement and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- Okay understood, sorry for my mistake and wish you a good day Stavru (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Youth rights. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TarnishedPath. I noticed that you recently removed content from Grokipedia 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. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Grokipedia. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.
Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Youth rights
[edit]Your edits to Youth rights were reverted according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. We do not take a stand on whether assumptions are "ignorant" or positions are "logically justified". Those are personal opinions that do not belong on Wikipedia. The sources you cited don't say anything about youth rights in general or taboos against youth sexual activity specifically, making your entire addition original research. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'll try to make my edits (additions) with a more neutrual point of view, I'll also follow the way of thinking you presented and be in line with the rules of Wikipedia.
- I just ask you when I publish that edit, to view it think if it's okay for wikipedia and not bluntly delete it just because it's from me, and from my side I'll make a better edit, the best I can.
- Thank you. Stavru (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because it was not
okay for Wikipedia
. It had nothing to do with you personally. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because it was not
Concern regarding User:Stavru/sandbox
[edit] Hello, Stavru. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Stavru/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grokipedia. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Grokipedia was changed by Stavru (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864772 on 2026-06-10T10:29:07+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit] |
Hello! Stavru,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC) |
Your draft article, User:Stavru/sandbox
[edit]
Hello, Stavru. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox".
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Concern regarding your edit to Single-gender world
[edit] Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Single-gender world. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Specifically, we do not use scare quotes to express editorial judgment. Thank you for listening. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 21:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)