Hi Ceconhistorian! I noticed your contributions to Scott Perry (politician) and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hongwu Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annam. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god some people actually read citations. Mach61 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceconhistorian! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 1911 Revolution that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Zenomonoz (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, "If the nominator really believed this article simply fails GNG, he wouldn't have made >20 edits to the article. Hard to see this as a good-faith nomination" is a failure to WP:AGF and inappropriate. Users are actually encouraged to improve articles and trim out unsupported content from any article, whether they are the nominator or not. AfD also requires users to provide proper reasoning per the notability guidelines for keeping articles, and your comment doesn't include any. Best to avoid this kind of comment moving forward. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is a **guideline** - not policy. I follow it, as do others, as my default attitude. But when I see clear evidence of you acting in poor faith, as I did, I have a right to call it out. You're experienced enough to understand this distinction between policy and guideline (I hope?), so coming to my talk page to lecture me about "violating assuming good faith" is just a further poor faith tactic from your part.

They should really look into whether reinstating you after your indef ban was worth it. Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ceconhistorian, thanks for the clarification about guidelines, that is helpful. I do apologise if it seemed I intended to annoy you. That was not intended. I was taught that one should always put behavioral concerns on the talk page of the relevant user, rather than on mainspace talk pages (hence why I came to your talk page). I mistakenly assumed you might be new to AfD so that's why I posted the comment.

I do have an autism diagnosis, so it makes me quite "rigid" about things like this when I should've just ignored it and kept it in check. I do find the comment suggesting I should be blocked again a bit unfair, because it happened when I was a teenager who hadn't properly educated myself on the requirement to stick one account, but it wasn't a block due to my editing style or interactions with editors. Thanks in advance, and again I apologise for causing any upset. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]