User talk:Chronophobos

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Chronophobos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm KirkburnFandom. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thanks. KirkburnFandom (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please take part on the discussion on the talk page instead of continuing what appears to be disruptive edit warring. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest editing[edit]

Your edit is a clear POV-pushing, the source clearly states "In the Catholic tradition, something like this viewpoint persisted in many minds long past the time when it reflected any reality out in the actual world; it was often expressed and summed up by the expression that 'error has no rights.' It was the Second Vatican Council, of course, which effectively superseded this principle and laid it aside in the Council's epochal Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae." Veverve (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2VC never superseded that principle. It's greatly unobjective to place suggestions like these in article, which is contradictory to second pillar of Wikipedia. Chronophobos (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. Your recent edit(s) to the page Mass (liturgy) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Elizium23 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inserting what you think is right, without sources or review f talkpage discussions. The lead summarizes the article body and must be supported by referenced content. The “National Socialism is socialism because it’s in the name” argument is nonsense, any more than the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea isa democracy. It was branding and obfuscation. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't discard that with no evidense. And I don't deny elements of democracy in North Korea Chronophobos (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can and do discard edits that have no basis in fact or scholarship. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal opinion. In any case, read the notices and FAQs at the top of Talk:Nazism, which summarize the reasons why edits like that are summarily dismissed. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Manosphere. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Manosphere. 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 ~~~~}}. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manosphere. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barack Obama. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]