User talk:Lord saturnus

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lord saturnus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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! HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, First Communion, 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. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Rus' people. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rus' people 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bolsheviks, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are edit-warring across several articles, against several other editors, to add unsourced material or your own interpretation of facts. This is not acceptable, and if you continue with this behaviour you are likely to find your editing permissions restricted or removed. If you want to add material to an article, you must make sure tha t it is backed by a reliable source, which you must cite. If your additions are reverted, you should discuss this on the article talk page rather than continuing to force in your challenged additions. RolandR (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello Lord saturnus. First I will reiterate my suggestions to you on an article talk page, that we would like you to work from sources and not making things up here, and please be mindful of English grammar and sentence structure when making additions; it would be good to add a citation where you found it as well.

You seem to have had an ignoble start here on 5 November where your first two edits put you in an edit war on Bolshevism and you've directly accused a fellow editor of vandalism, which is a serious charge and may be considered a personal attack. Many of your edits in the meantime have been reverted because we do not see them as constructive. You may or may not be a new editor, but in my view you are on thin ice, given the warnings you've already received. Please tread lightly, my friend L.S. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

huh, kinda weird? well okay so good then because i think that is great you feel so concerned for me but im still wondering if this is you trolling? is this a concern troll? where did i accuse the russian communist of deliberate vandalism? i hadnt made a positive claim to secure knowledge on the soviet. i said he looks like he clearly has an agenda to edit in a non-neutral way from his privately secured location there in russia playing pro-soviet. what does he make out ever to edit that is constructive. he makes many destructive edits. maybe hes just an idiot, who knows here to judge well enough but God? only God is truly fair and i saw some abuse coming my way from those men for linking Bolshevism to stalin.

so then pardon me, im not antisemitic because im rather jewish myself by ethnic heritage from one parent (and im a Germanized Slav for crying out loud) so this isnt a personal attack while not knowing who you or him are, but you maybe need to remember why people sometimes see value to repeat this quote (that i dont know too much history about but still find witty and humorous): "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you" (Polish proverb).

you and the russian sovietism fan although probably not literal jews and so that i guess which is fine, so bear with me here (and nothing wrong with that) are making edits to attemptedly obscure my prospective good faith while acting like a lawyer in a public forum of supposedly peaceful discussion using methods of often trying to be in a position of casting out the suggestion of wild accusations among other strange tactics i find amusing but off colour. Lord saturnus (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern Christian Orthodoxy" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eastern Christian Orthodoxy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#Eastern Christian Orthodoxy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Cross Party[edit]

Your account is only 3 weeks old, with only 61 edits, so I assume good faith that you are not familiar with how things are done here. When you make a change to an article, and it is disputed, WP:BRD says the next step is to discuss the dispute on the talk page, not to continue to try to force your preferred edits into the article by continuing to revert. Since you want to make the change, the WP:ONUS is on you to get a WP:consensus in favor of your changes before you get to put them into the article.

Please start a discussion on the talk page in which you make an argument in favor of your edits, and do not restpre them to the article unless and until you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are you new or rusty? thanks for the good faith pal but yeah, no, thats wrong because thats what you did, not me. wp:onus is on you since you FIRSTLY reverted his edit opposing you then he reverted you and i fixed his edit another way after you said take it to talk. i added different content while defending your idea of taking it to the talk page. wp:brd is your thing so swing with it. Lord saturnus (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, look again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no i think you are likely trolling then but okay. i respectfully disagree so let's just leave it at that bro. i am not going to waste more time since i did read as you know that you left over some nonsensical drama about vandalism recently so carry on if you are not rusty. Lord saturnus (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know you've got me, I'll admit it, I've been on Wikipedia for 17 years and 5 months and have made almost 300,000 edits simply in order to misquote policy to poor innocent editors such as yourself and thereby troll them. That's just how I get my jollies. Oh what fun I have, I can tell you!! (And no, I did not "leave over some nonsensical drama about vandalism recently". With the exception of a few months sprinkled here and there over the years, I've been a steady contributor to Wikipedia. How could I possibly give up the trolling I do when it brings me such joy?)

Now if you're at all interested in facts rather than indulging in rhetorical b.s. -- if you look at my edits, you will see that I at first restored the material that had been added by you, and then removed by user Marval703, but when they removed it again with a fuller explanation, I did not revert their edit, and, in fact, sent them public thanks for it. Then, when an IP and you restored it, I reverted those edits, thereby removing the material, not restoring it as I had done before. For this very obvious reason, your description above is incorrect. I changed my mind, and acted in my second edit to do precisely the opposite of what I had done before. This is why I suggested that you "look again", because you had totally misunderstood what occurred.

Please enjoy the time you have left on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i already told you i dont care. if you have a problem making mistakes having misunderstood others then that is not under my control, so what you do is not my problem, but yours as marcus aurelius would say to you teaching stoic principles.

please enjoy the time i have left? are you ordering me to stay? haha uh kind of weird. Lord saturnus (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent addition of unsourced content and battleground behaviour. Normally I would give a timed block, but you have indicated that you don't really care about editing collaboratively, so we'll need to make sure you do care before an unblock can be considered.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i havent suggested in any way to indicate that i dont care. if you do this obviously it is unfair. however its true that im emotionally unconcerned in general about this abuse thrown at me. Lord saturnus (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]