User talk:Agent123456789

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Pinethicket. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Flowers for Algernon without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Pinethicket (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Reeve's Tale has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Reeve's Tale was changed by Sharkattack123456789 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.908388 on 2014-10-16T21:01:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Patriot Act, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Haploidavey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hades, 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. Nothing should be added to infoboxes unless it is clearly and reliably sourced. The sources must be scholarly and published by specialist publishing houses. Infoboxes are meant to function as summaries of essential facts, already provided and cited in the main body of text. Don't add anything that isn't supported by a reliable and verifiable source. And please take care not to remove or replace infobox material that's already supported within the artilce. Haploidavey (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that all this applies to every edit you've made to infoboxes on various Greek deities. Sources must be supplied! The fact that you added the names of at least two planets unknown to the ancient Greeks suggests to me that you've probably not checked any of your information against reliable sources. A reply here would be very much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my apologies I was absolutely not thinking when I added the planetary info for several Greek deities. I for some reason assumed that the planetary info was retroactive and that plants which were discovered after the Ancient Greek and Romans times and then named after these mythological figures, was what was being depicted in the infobox. When I realized that the planetary info in the infobox was present as it related to the plants known to ancient Greeks I reverted the page back to its original. I will be sure to take better care in understanding what is being displayed in the infoboxes for mythological and historical figures in the future before making any edits. Agent123456789 (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check what you've done at Zeus. Your removal of sourced and cited content (concerning equivalents) from the infobox has broken some essential links. I agree that they could have been better positioned, but the "fallout" of their removal is very obvious, if you check the notes and footnotes. Repair or restoration would be appreciated. Thanks Haploidavey (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I absolutely forgot that the removed content had sources and links which were essential to the rest of the page and which needed to be remapped and repaired when the content was removed. I will revert the page to its original and do a proper edit tomorrow. Agent123456789 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm glad you're taking this seriously. I have to point (per your most recent edit summary at Zeus) that the infobox can only carry information already provided and adequately sourced in the article. I don't think the comparative mythology elements should be addressed in the lead's first sentence, but rather at the end of the lead. In other words, we should present the topic (Zeus) thoroughly, then mention comparable deities at the very end. Just ensure that whatever changes you make, or material you add, all of it is reliably sourced, and the source is provided in the notes. Cheers! Haploidavey (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jordan Poole, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hawaii (island) 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. Peaceray (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2022 (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! Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm 3PPYB6. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Monkeypox. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I understand if you don't like images of penile monkeypox lesions (I myself cringe at such images), but remember that Wikipedia is not censored, so this content is still kept up because it is relevant to the article. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your point of view and agree with you that wikipedia is not censored. However, I did not remove any factual written information, rather I simply removed an image that supplemented the written information. Whether it is topically-relevant for inclusion is not for me to decide but rather for a talk space consensus to do so. Images on wikipedia are not requisites for articles and as such removing them or adding them is discretionary unless there has been discussion consensus that a certain image for sure belongs or does not belong in a certain article/section. If there has been such consensus about the image I removed, then in that case I apologize, however to my knowledge there has not been any such discussion. Agent123456789 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, that would be the way to go. You can yourself open a thread (you can start it by clicking this link) and make your argument. Others will then begin to pitch in and provide their opinions. If a consensus emerges to remove the article, the image will probably be removed. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agent123456789! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at A Song of Ice and Fire that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop continuosly adding text with the edit summary similar to the last time: "talk space consensus is all major superlatives go at the top". That's just not true. It isn't the consensus and the oppoite is the case. You've been reverted by multiple times. Per WP:BRD take it to the talk apge otherwise you will be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad I thought it was the talk space consensus at one point but I guess it must have changed since. It was hard to tell with all the edits being made to this page over the past several days. I'll be sure to not re-add that sentence since I now know the consensus is different. Thanks for letting me know. Agent123456789 (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox[edit]

I've reverted your bold move to Mpox. There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, and the consensus is to wait for a bit. If you think the name should change now, please discuss. Also, you failed to move the talk page (which is an option normally checked by default in the move page). -- Colin°^Talk 18:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you letting me know Agent123456789 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying/moving content within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Topfreedom into Toplessness. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizing and weasel words[edit]

Hi, Agent123456789. First I want to say I like your username, but second I wanted to discuss the edit you made at 117th Congress. You used a WaPo editorial and an NYT article to state "Political scientists regard the 117th Congress to be one of the most productive in U.S. history." This is a big statement that must be substantiated by more than just the sources provided, especially since the sources themselves don't even say this. I would highly suggest you read WP:SYNTH, as based on a reading of the NYT and WaPo articles, that seems to have been what was done here. Additionally, please read MOS:WEASEL; 'political scientists regard [X] to be [Y]' is an extremely broad statement that in this case is referring to entirely unknown political scientists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]