User talk:Dark4tune

July 2020
Hello, I'm Harsh 2580. I noticed that in this edit to Myyrmanni bombing, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Harsh (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

March 21
Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Jklamo (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Came across your recent edit to article Georgia (country). I was looking for some proactive help in a chronological merging

Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast (list) (to create an interactive map further for the article) from some one who is acquaint/ interested in Black Sea region. Pl. visit the section list and help out if you find interested.

Thanks and warm regards

I am looking for article expansion volunteers, can you help? (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summaries
While it is good that you are using edit summaries, edit summaries that merely state that you "edited" something, like this, are honestly rather useless as they provide no information: we know you edited the article/infobox or even section. What you changed, and why, are far more important. Please ensure that your future edit summaries include that information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Anatoly Dyatlov
Hi, can you please confirm that when you removed the verification needed tag on the above-named article that you did verify that the source provided supported all of the claims made in the text preceding it? An IP had modified that text from what it originally stated, which was what prompted the addition of the VN tag, and your edit summary stated that you were removing the tag but not whether you'd done any verification. If you have not verified that the text is supported by the provided reference, can you please reinsert the VN tag? Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Doniago, I can say that the source "Chernobyl: How it was" did verify that Dyatlov's death was caused by his radiation sickness from the accident. As for the other claims made, they were already there before the text was modified, so if you could, let me know if I should verify those too. Thanks! Dark4tune (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a bad idea to verify the entirety of the text supported by that reference if you have it on hand, but my primary concern was the text added by the IP, since you've probably noticed that there's a lot of well-meaning editors who will insert text into sourced text that the source doesn't actually support. Thanks for the verification! DonIago (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

May and June 2023
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Belgrade school shooting‎ has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.  Aloha27  talk  18:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.This is about the background information in Belgrade school shooting.—Alalch E. 12:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Belgrade school shooting. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. You have named the perpetrator in the Infobox which is against WP:BLPCRIME and Talk:Belgrade school shooting. You also have been noticed there. -- DragonFederal (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * We have already established not to name the perpetrator in the article, and my edit has been reverted. You appear to be somewhat late to the party. Dark4tune (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lydia Gromyko
I have submitted a request on the "Active disagreements" section of the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Egeymi (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 lab leak theory 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. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

your edit
please explain your action here I mean this one [1 ] AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I mean it would not be neutral to mention a Polish-Lithuanian victory when in reality there was no clear victor in the war. Neither side managed to truly outdo one another. The source you provide may not be entirely neutral itself. Dark4tune (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't accuse a source of not being neutral without having an argument and you haven't given any argument just some flimsy reason because it's not neutral, that's not allowed Stop_hand_nuvola.svg AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not flimsy, Russia successfully drove Poland-Lithuania out of Moscow brought it back into Russian hands. At the same time, Russia did grant some of its former territories to Poland-Lithuania. Therefore, you cannot say either side was victorious as both achieved something desirable to them. You don't need a biased source to mislead you from facts. Dark4tune (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Russia signed an unfavourable treaty and did not push out Poles and Lithuanians what is this stupidity on the contrary it was Poles with Cossacks and Lithuanians who were under Moscow and the situation of Russians was difficult and one more thing please do not change anything without ending the discussion. And sources are always needed, this is not the way to do things. you have to give always source
 * And stop the edit war, in addition, if the sources say it is a victory it is a victory end and full stop Stop_hand_nuvola.svg AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you rambling about? It seems to me like you've lost the argument and are now desperately trying to come up with a coherent response to counteract me. Looks like your sources can't save you anymore. Dark4tune (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please follow the rules you have no source to back up what you are saying Mellk was trying to prove something because he had sources and you are dabbling in edit wars, this is not to be done or you risk being warned or even blocked for harmful editing. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)