User talk:BHB95

Nabi Tajima
How is Nabi Tajima disputed?? What do some people think her birth date was?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nabi Tajima is marked as disputed in the chronological list of oldest living person. She is written in italics which means "Disputed". BHB95 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We're not sure that italic bold means disputed or not. Let's ask other editors for help. http://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM Mutatatux (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Alf Smith
I have reverted the edits you made on List of British supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people. Multiple reliable source, such as this and this state Mr. Smith died on the evening of Saturday, August 3rd. I counted the days on a calendar since his last birthday and it comes to 127. The 128 number is being repeated by the media because a local official incorrectly tweeted Smith died at 111 years and 128 days old. He was wrong though, as any calendar will tell you. Please stop changing articles based on this media error. I have no doubt you made those edits in good faith. Good eye, but the media led you down the wrong path. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to leave you an advice
I've seen here, you tried to explain the difference between the 2000s (2000-2009) and the "first decade of the 21st century" (2001-2010). We do not apply differentials on decades, because the other method is barley used by the general public, or even experts and most governmental officials. You edited under good faith and I applaud you for that, but I want to help keep the record straight. WildEric19 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Decade moves
Have you discussed the best titles for decade articles with experts such as WP:WikiProject Years? A complex network of templates relies on the current names. Please stop moving decade articles unless there is a consensus to do so. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A decade starts on a year ending on the digit 1 and ends on the following year which is a multiple of ten, just as a century starts on a year 01 and ends on the following year which is a multiple of 100. So please don't revert my moves. BHB95 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I won't revert them without consulting others, but please don't move any more pages for now. Let's form a consensus at WT:WikiProject Years before taking further action. Certes (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop now. These moves are contested, and a change of this importance needs to be discussed in advance. If you continue this disruptive editing, you may be blocked from editing. Certes (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you are acting in good faith but these moves are controversial. You should now follow the requested move process. If you continue to impose your view of decades unilaterally, I will have no alternative but to raise the matter for admin attention, which may result in a block without further warnings. Certes (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are continuing to make contested moves. I have requested further action at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Certes (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!


Hello, BHB95, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * How to add those all-important references
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * The Signpost, our newspaper.

Topic ban on longevity
You appear to be the same user as, who is topic banned from editing longevity articles. You are now again editing longevity articles, both under this account and that IP, in violation of that ban. Why?--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Bergkvara Castle. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. ~ GB fan 17:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Bulverket
I'm sorry, but Bulverket was not a castle either, it was/is a fort as in fortifications even though it's under water now. It is a marine archeological site, so you were onto something there, I've moved it from Category:Archaeology of Sweden to Category:Archaeological sites in Sweden. Since it also did contain buildings within the fortification, why did you remove Category:Former buildings and structures in Sweden. It is also still a structure even if it's submerged, so why remove Category:Buildings and structures in Gotland County? I think your spring-cleaning went a bit too far, did you actually read the article? I ask you to fix these since I don't want an edit war, or please explain why you think those categories are not suitable. --cart -Talk  15:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, BHB95,

Before you tag any more pages for deletion, please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you are familiar with the criteria for deletion. Also, any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notice to the talk page of the page creator. If you use Twinkle, the program will do this for you which makes things easy. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Moxibustion. 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.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 12 May 2021 (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.

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. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Moxibustion
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
Your recent editing history at List of the verified oldest 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:BjörnBergman&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/BjörnBergman. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)