User talk:Ancient Historian Enthusiast

February 2023
Hello, I'm Wesoree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Shapur I 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 or the Help desk. Thanks.  Wesoree  ( Talk ) 13:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel like its important to clarify that Shapur was not present in the setbacks to Odaenathus. It is why I edited the page to specify it was the kings subordinates, Shapur himself was successfully campaigning in the east at that time. Ancient Historian Enthusiast (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of Talavera, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Battle of Malplaquet—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning
You appear to have numerous warnings on your talk page, which you continue to ignore. Your latest addition to Battle of Cerignola, consisted of adding unsourced information to the infobox and adding information to a referenced sentence. This type of editing is disruptive. I strongly suggest you read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Continued disruptive editing can result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Battle of Garigliano (1503) was also disruptive, since you changed 4,000(sourced to Tucker) to 7,000 which is unsourced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)