User talk:Guardian101

June 2017
Hello, I'm Darkness Shines. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chinese Century without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to North American Free Trade Agreement, 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. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to China–Israel relations, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the sources. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/24/the-eight-great-powers-of-2017/ gives it #2 tied with Japan. Jim1138 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You deleted a properly cited definition under false claims
In Economic growth you deleted a sentence with proper citation claiming a dead link when there was no link intended. It seems you have a history of problem edits. If you continue making disruptive edits you can and should be banned from editing.Phmoreno (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economic antisemitism to Jewish culture (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal
Please, Guardian101, don't remove content without a proper explanation as you did it to List of military occupations. Your "they lost that battle" doesn't mean there was no foreign military occupation during the Russian Civil War. See the Wikipedia article Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War: "... though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925."--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you're no more interested in providing rationale in this discussion, the content has been restored. If you have any objections, you can start a new discussion on the list's talk and prove your point there.

For the record, I've noticed that it's not the first unreasonable removal, your similar edit in the article Nazi Germany (with the edit summary "The Soviet Union was never occupied") was quickly reverted by Wikipedia administrator Diannaa. I don't want to speculate, but it looks like you're doing it intentionally. I advise you to be more constructive, good luck.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Your recent editing history at List of military occupations 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Template:Russia topics seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Template:Russia topics. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''I am starting a discussion thread regarding why the 'information should not be there' as it is long standing for the template, and certainly of direct relevance to Russian history... particlarly in the context of all the other categories in use.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Capital of Russia, MoscowSkyline.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Capital of Russia, MoscowSkyline.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, United Kingdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source for statements in Wikipedia. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at United Kingdom 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello, I'm SteveMcCluskey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scientific Revolution have been undone because they 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. Thanks. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"is often considered"
Using a completely different subject as an example, it's accurate to say "orthodox Christians believe Jesus to be God, Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet, Mandaeans believe Jesus as a false prophet, and Scientologists believe Jesus to be a conflation between alien hologrammatic propaganda and a mildly psychic but tempermental pederast." Although these beliefs contradict each other, the simple fact that each group believes different things about the same subject is not contradictory. The existence of one of those groups does not negate the existence of those other groups, even if their beliefs are not compatible.

Now let's look at Hitler. Any writer on the topic (at least, any writer worth considering) is either going to say he's the most evil dude ever or are simply not going to comment on it. Someone who thinks that Stalin, Mao, or General Butt Naked was way more evil doesn't really disprove that people think that Hitler is the face of evil. This isn't to say that any of them are wrong (even if "most evil" would mean that only one choice is right), but we don't need to go into the General Butt Naked article and remove that someone described him as "the most evil man in the world" just because other people think it was Hitler, nor do we need to put in a contrary comment to the effect of "however, more people more closely associate Hitler with evil."

Differences of opinion exist, and we don't need to hide them when they're relevant to an article (nor do we need to bring in contrary info on unrelated topics).

Do you get what I'm getting at here? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're talking about his editing on the "Genghis Khan" article, right? His edits are becoming disruptive and he's engaging in a ridiculous edit war. He's also doing this on the "Emperor" article. If he continues to do this, an admin should be informed. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am an admin and I am informed. Just making sure that this user is incapable of discussion before taking action.
 * Guardian101, do you have any proper arguments against what I've explained for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great. I didn't know you were an admin, I should have looked at your userpage. He has just reverted again on the Genghis Khan article. His reasoning is very limited and does not make any sense. He has reverted 4 times on that article. And on the Emperor article he has removed the lead image of Genghis Khan 6 different times. Again, he gave a very limited reasoning and one that does not make any sense. After my last revert I told him to take it to the talk page and he simply wrote on the talk page: "Genghis Khan image should not be there" and then another editor agreed with him and gave a very limited reasoning. And quickly after that, the editor removed it from the article. Obviously during a discussion like that, the status quo of the lead image is supposed to remain on the article. It's all so absurd and I'm running out of patience. He is edit warring and engaging in disruptive editing. You should probably look at the edit history of both articles to get an even clearer picture. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the "another editor" that I mentioned above is Francis Schonken. He left a BS and pretty retaliatory warning on my talk page. I responded to it here. He has also wrongly used the "minor edit" button to inappropriately mark significant edits as being "minor" on the "Emperor" article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the histories of those pages, and Guardian101's contributions page as well. For the Genghis Khan article, Guardian101 is the only user opposing a pretty obvious consensus to keep the line and hasn't given adequate reasoning for such opposition. His edits there and in the Emperor article could be interpreted as possibly being some issue against Genghis Khan on his part (but that would open the door to the inverse of those accusations against you so I recommend not acknowledging this idea any further). In the Emperor article however, the change in focus, Francis Schonken's presence, and the scant representation of the Mongol Empire in the article all make the consensus far less clear.  You need to (while assuming good faith from Francis Schonken) engage in discussion on the talk page to demonstrate that Genghis Khan is one of the most notable examples of an emperor, or perhaps suggest an inclusive gallery of multiple emperors as the God article does, or perhaps restore the picture in the section on Mongolia. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. But there was a silent consensus to keep the image of Genghis Khan as the lead image. It had been on the article for months without opposition and is a very good example of an Emperor. Guardian101 was originally the only one reverting it and he kept doing it without any concrete reasoning. I mostly agree with what you said, but both Guardian101 and Francis Schonken have engaged in wildly inappropriate and shady behavior as I articulated above.


 * Also, while the discussion for the "Emperor" article lead image is going on, the status quo should remain. And the status quo is the lead image of Genghis Khan. Francis Schonken quickly removed it after essentially making up a consensus for removing it. The discussion had only been introduced in the talk page for less than an hour and he claimed that was good enough to remove it. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any progress on this? Guardian101 is removing more sourced content from other pages while giving the most smallest and nonsensical explanations. And when he gets reverted, he reverts again. That's disruptive. He has a history of this. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emperor. 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. Thank you. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2020 (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.

Partially blocked
I've blocked you from editing the Genghis Khan page as you continue to refuse to communicate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Doanri (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Censorship in China. Doanri (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Russian Ancient Clothes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Russian Ancient Clothes.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Russian Folk Clothes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Russian Folk Clothes.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Russian Folk Clothes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Russian Folk Clothes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that different people might have different opinions. That's the crux of your disruptive editing at Genghis Khan.  I was going to just come here and give you another warning, but then I saw you removing the only pictoral example from an article saying "There are other examples", and you blanking this template because not all pages use it.  There's also this unexplained deletion of sourced material, this half-baked explanation for a similar removal, and shuffling this template's content into a single article before shuffling it back.  Then there's you saying that Isaac Newton wasn't relevant to the Scientific Revolution.  There's also oddities like this.
 * Looking over your talk page and your contributions, I see a history of inability refusal to communicate (often manifest as edit warring), inability to consider the consequences of your actions (often manifest by how regularly you have to revert yourself), and an inability to consider other perspectives. Those three skills (communication, considering consequences, considering perspectives) are absolutely necessary to edit here. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If any administrator could please review my case as soon as possible, that would be very much appreciated. I don't mean to sound desperate, I just am very eager to once again becoming a responsible editor on Wikipedia.