User talk:Dantai Amakiir

January 2010
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Ben and Hollys Little Kingdom. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ben and Hollys Magical Kingdom. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom is the correct title, while Ben and Holly's Magical Kingdom is a mistake that whoever made that page seems to have made. I simply moved it; this cannot be vandalism. If the page had no citations, this is the fault of whoever originally posted it. 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

May 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of common misconceptions. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexandria’s Genesis


The article Alexandria’s Genesis has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Google indicated NO news coverage. So however this might play on the internet, there' no evidence of notability here. If I'm wrong, some evidence would be nice. Nothing in the article speaks to significance or impact.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexandria’s Genesis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexandria’s Genesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alexandria’s Genesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scott Mac 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Antifeminism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Fyi
Based on your editing proclivity this may be of interest to you. Lionel (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Antifeminism. 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. In particular, the Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Antifeminism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nerimon


A tag has been placed on Nerimon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Half  Price  17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conan chronologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan the Barbarian (novel) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Havok (wargame)


The article Havok (wargame) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable wargame that fails WP:PRODUCT, as tagged since August 2008.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 00:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

December 2023
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Black Irish (folklore). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Enough. You've been warned on the article talk page already, several times. Next time, it's AN/I.'' Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Centuria—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. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Interbellum
In this edit at Henri Giraud your replaced the word interbellum because, you said:
 * Interbellum is not an established term. It exists on Wikipedia and almost nowhere else. It's also pretty poor pseudo-Latin.

I have not reverted your edit, because your replacement term interwar is just as good or better, and is much more frequent. However, please note that whatever your opinion of the word interbellum or its derivation, it is defined in various sources ( OED, Wiktionary, M-W) and is in use in 41,000 books and 8,000 journal articles. So your edit was an improvement, but the justification was off. I'm a big supporter of using edit summaries, but in this case, giving no justification would have been better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)