User talk:72.69.179.21

October 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to First Special Service Force, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. - w o lf  02:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at New York Medical College, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - w o lf  02:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Battle of York, you may be blocked from editing. Leventio (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of York. 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: 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.  Yoshi24517  ( Chat ) ( Online ) 22:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of York. Dan Leonard (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not knowing the proper protocols. I was profoundly insulted to read such a historic battle be perverted to the point of vandalism in it presentation.
 * The "edit war" was intiatied by leventio, acting as a bot, talking and functioning as a bot. I have academic and his own updated state Canadian enclycopedia to correct nearly all of this contribittuions on wikipedia as it relates to this article. His contributions to the article along with several others is impossible on a human standard (over 40% on one, and the other bot did 30%). To me that is literal vandalism and disinformation.
 * Their propaganda skew is obvious because of the implications of losing a pivotal battle that lead to then white house being burned.
 * Again I apologize for not knowing to use this talk page to report his behavior. 72.69.179.21 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of York
Again, I've already pinged you in the talk page. Let's discuss this in the talk page instead of through edit summaries (see Talk:Battle of York Leventio (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I already sent sourced links that went unchecked by you, something a bot would do. Please explain why you feel the need to write 42% of the article without sourcing and with propaganda narratives that pervert this historic battle. Please be reasonable, and articulate.
 * Please explain why the "sacking of York" was pivotal to the war and the historical ramifications of the battle (something the top line should explicitly say, as it does for all battles). You may copy and paste this prompt into your AI " please provide an executive summary of the battle of Toronto (York) that provide cogent points accurate to revolutionary war".
 * As a personal matter, using AI to write and narrate is very obvious and low quality. Wikipedia is valued for its high quality factual presentation, not fantasy stories. 72.69.179.21 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited large sections of the content from British preparations to the Legacy section (except for the ORBAT section). Show me the unsourced content from British preparations to legacy and we can discuss it.
 * Additionally, I've already highlighted the specific key issues of concern with your edits in the talk page (I've added another comment in that talk page highlighting the specific concerns). I'd encourage you to look over it and engage in the discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree with it. Leventio (talk) 23:24, 16 October 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 22:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not knowing the proper protocols. I was profoundly insulted to read such a historic battle be perverted to the point of vandalism in it presentation.
 * The "edit war" was intiatied by leventio, acting as a bot, talking and functioning as a bot. I have academic and his own updated state Canadian enclycopedia to correct nearly all of this contribittuions on wikipedia as it relates to this article. His contributions to the article along with several others is impossible on a human standard (over 40% on one, and the other bot did 30%). To me that is literal vandalism and disinformation.
 * Their propaganda skew is obvious because of the implications of losing a pivotal battle that lead to then white house being burned.
 * Again I apologize for not knowing to this talk page to report his behavior. 72.69.179.21 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you cut it with the personal attacks. Calling other users "bots" or "propaganda bots" is not helping your case here. Everybody else is human, the only users that are bots are the ones with the word "bot" or some form of it in the username. We are not pushing propaganda, we are strictly enforcing editing guidelines. Thank you.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will voluntarily never contribute to wikipedia again. It's sad to see self-proclaimed "IDAF" user write 42% of a historic battle. I trust the community this much to correct this enormous and egregious error, because it is so flagrant of an insult to truth.
 * Any textbook, any academic paper, summary reads as mine does. I used to write with AI on other projects, and I encourage you to examine his contributions, volume of contributions, and lack of nuanced cogent points to examine what is the driving force of his contributions. It isn't truth . 72.69.179.21 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.