Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I noticed that in this edit to Vajiralongkorn, 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. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thai criminal law article 112 says Whoevers defame, insult or has a great malice to the king, queen, heir to the throne or regent. People in Thailand can criticise the king if that speech didn’t have a great malice Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sindelar1986. An edit that you recently made to Demi Lovato seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not remove the comma after American birth dates Sindelar1986 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Snoop Dogg. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Jamesluiz102- (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ethan2345678 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JohnFromPinckney. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sieglinde Gstöhl, 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. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethan2345678! I noticed your contributions 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! Bebiezaza (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ethan2345678 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the birthname parameter should only be used when the birthname is different from the article subject's current name, i.e. when there is a change in given name or surname or both. In addition, it should not duplicate other parameters, such as full name; in those cases either one or other parameter should be used but not both. DrKay (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I told you above not to do this[1] and you acknowledged that. Continuing with edits after being asked to stop is a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for which editors can be blocked from editing under Wikipedia:Blocking policy. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please stop doing this time and time again! "Princess" is not a name but a title in that case and as pertains to all royalty. You have been asked politely. This request is emphatic. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. --Ethan2345678 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Johnnie Bob. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Minecraft have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, you may be blocked from editing. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. From special:diff/1030520241, you didn't fix it. You actually broke it since "the larvae" refers to eucosial Hymenopteran larvae, not to any other groups of larvae. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 13:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Elizabeth Olsen, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please read the talk page more carefully - it discusses the involvement of her maiden/media name in the first sentence of the lead. Using pronouns do not violate MOS:SURNAME, and media sources should always be carefully read before established information is changed. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you make a lot of unexplained changes regarding wording in many articles. Please see WP:IFITAINTBROKE. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bettydaisies Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you reverted an edit on Porvoo without giving a reason. Please take a look at the discussion question I've opened on the article's talk page. Perhaps we can agree on an appropriate level of detail! Thank you. 216.15.21.250 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with Koopa kid. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that you changed the date on a date format template (specifically, a Template:Use DMY dates, here). Please refrain from doing this, since in many cases (as in this case), the date is used by bots that check for date format inconsistencies in articles. In other words, it is not necessarily the date that the template was placed, but is the date that the article was last checked for inconsistencies. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, to what extent they're considered too "much" for special:diff/1028680532, special:diff/1029485435 and special:diff/1029140711? -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 09:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care over this type of edit. Edits like this one[2] change the meaning of the sentence from "the Duchess of Sussex's press secretary" to "Oprah Winfrey's press secretary" because the last woman referred to was Oprah Winfrey. If the phrase is ambiguous the woman needs to be identified. DrKay (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me Ethan2345678 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think you're taking sufficient care. Edits like this[3] can be misread when the subject of the preceding sentence is a different entity. DrKay (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just noting that this still seems to be an issue, looking at the recent edits to Keira Knightley. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made a mistake, so sorry about that. Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not taking enough care. I've had to undo most of your edits at Princess Margaret[4]. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pronouns weren’t dubious so I’ve just edit it. Ethan2345678 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is incomprehensible, and demonstrates the key problem: you cannot write good enough English to 'copy-edit' articles that have already been copy-edited by native English speakers. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to writing style. Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is to inform you that your edits to John Legend are unnecessary and disruptive, and are contrary to Wikipedia manuals of style for biographical articles. In particular, please see MOS:SURNAME and MOS:OPENPARABIO. These types of edits are considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and, in the future, will result in user warnings being issued which may ultimately lead to your editing privileges being blocked. If you have any questions regarding any of this, please comment below and I will do my best to clarify my reasoning or suggest further reading. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethan2345678: You misunderstood this edit for vandalism. I'm afraid that you didn't read the change thoroughly. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 13:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it needs to be moved to draft space. Please see Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 05:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethan2345678, I'm Primefac. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have removed some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits! Primefac (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding on to what Primefac said, please don't keep adding private information about yourself to your user page. Unfortunately if you keep doing so, we may have to block you for safety reasons. I'm not going to do it this time, but please be more careful in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ethan2345678,

Please do not move Stub articles to Draft space. It is completely acceptable for a Stub article with few references to be in the main space of the project. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see you have done this with a number of articles, not just the one I saw. Please stop! Do not move any more articles into Draft space until you have more editing experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page Finger station has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page Budd station has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you left a {{rewrite}} tag on John McColl (British Army officer) and your edit summary was 'this section has to be improved' but you didn't explain why. What do you see as wrong with the section? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s all about writing style and grammar Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style is a very personal thing: different editors have different writing styles. If you think there is a grammatical error then please explain on the talk page (as suggested in WP:DRIVEBY) or, better still, please just correct it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ethan2345678 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing at a very high rate, which is resulting in some sloppy edits. Please slow down, use the "Preview" feature and review your edit before publishing. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, I read my edit before I published it. Also In addition of that, many other BLP articles use “Born and raised” Ethan2345678 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit did not say "Born and raised," your edit said "aborn and raised." Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the first sentence that you edited is a fragment. Again, I ask you to please slow down and use the preview button and read what you're publishing before you hit publish to make sure your edit makes sense. This goes double when trying to restore an edit that's already been undone. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s not a good idea to commit edit warring. So let’s stop editing on that page. Ethan2345678 (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please figure out how WP:OLINK works. You'll note, when you've bothered to read it, that we don't link obviously massive globally known geographical places. I found your piping of United Kingdom as a link for England at Daniel Chatto to be really, really misleading. Please don't that again. It falls under an obvious OLINk for starters and, worse, is clearly a completely misleading pipe attempt. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have added a maintenance template that requires that a reason be given on the article's talk page (in particular, here). Since no talk page discussion was found, and the your reason for placing the template is evident neither from an inspection of the article nor the edit summary, it has been deleted per the documentation for the template Template:OR1.

In general, please insure that you post any controversial issues to the article's talk page, especially the placement of templates or certain other edits that require a reason be given on the article's talk page. Furthermore, please be advised that many of your edits either carry no edit summary or a misleading or "canned" one. This may also be an issue in the future. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding royalty, MOS:SURNAME states the following:

"Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles [...] A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title; at some time in the future the Prince of Wales will be a different person than Charles, Prince of Wales."

Royals are generally referred to as "X, Duchess X, Prince X, Duchess of X, Prince of X", etc. interchangeably. The majority of article subjects with surnames are referred to by their surnames and their pronouns interchangeably. There is no policy against either of these things, which is why edits like this, this, and this are unconstructive, especially with the reasoning of "fixing things". Please keep this in mind in your future editing. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also edits that I attempted to change from “Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” to “Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife, Meghan” mutiple times. Why they were reverted? Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies she doesn't have a title. There's no reason to include Harry's full name without Meghan's upon first introduction, as is the norm for many, many royals and nobles throughout Wikipedia. It's not the same rhetoric as "Barack and Michelle Obama", because its a dukedom, not a surname. In fact, if you followed that rhetoric, it would be "Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex", but that phrasing is already clunky.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is using “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” fine? Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its simpler if you just use the article names at first mention, a la Archewell, since it usually includes some form of their WP:COMMONNAME for identification too. But subsequent mentions of the couple can vary from "Harry and Meghan" to "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex", etc. but being consistent and giving equal weight in the joint mention is important for readability.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ethan2345678 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make an effort to fully review this policy. Note the bold: unsubstantiated changes of referential language, like "Queen Elizabeth" to "Elizabeth", "Elizabeth", to "She", etc. especially when done en mass, serve no purpose. Additionally, using titles alongside first names is perfectly fine, there is no standard claiming otherwise. Please note that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS includes "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". Thanks. --Bettydaisies (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop doing this. I didn’t attack other editors, maybe I made a mistake so sorry about that again. Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one of your recent contributions made to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get it what you’ve said in the edit summary. Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a heads-up - this isn't "unexplain[ed]". The user has repeatedly vandalised the article, and has since referred to the editors reverting the vandalism (including myself) as a "Karen". Are you aware of Twinkle? It'll save you having to manually warn vandals, as I can see you've done before (except I see no attempt on your part to warn this one - make sure to follow through with warning vandals, as after four have been issued, or an "only" warning, one can report them to WP:AIV). Happy editing, Patient Zero^talk 02:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, Thanks Ethan2345678 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When contributing to discussions on talk pages, please make sure to indent your responses using colons (:). This helps keep discussions readable. In short, if you are the second person in a thread, just add a colon before your comment; if you're the third person, add two colons; if you're the fourth person, add three colons, etc. Please read WP:INDENT or ask for help if you're confused. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestion Ethan2345678 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Ethan2345678! I have noticed that you often edit without using an informative edit summary. I observed that you fill the field with "Updated since your last visit", which is not a summary of the edits that you have made to a page. Please do your best to always fill in the field with an edit summary which helps others to understand the intention of your edit. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. A list of commonly used edit summary abbreviations can be found at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Thanks! Peter Ormond 💬 04:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some information. Ethan2345678 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove useful links from an article, as you did in the article Taylor Swift. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 10:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have a wonderful day, thanks Ethan2345678 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get very far around here slapping people in the face like that, sir, and you are actually becoming quite a pest! No response would have been better than the response you made. And PLEASE indent your talk page comments! Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Danielle Jonas, 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 your sandbox for that. Also, please try to use more WP:CIVIL and more meaningful/specific edit summaries, quoting Wikipedia policy documents where appropriate. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Diana, Princess of Wales, you may be blocked from editing.

Your continued changing of minor items on this and other articles to suit your personal preferences may be construed to assert WP:OWNERSHIP of those articles. Please bear this in mind and use appropriate caution in your future editing. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 10:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted your edits of Basic English (see below) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruptive editing by User:Ethan2345678. You are welcome to respond to that discussion if you would like to. Cnilep (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ethan2345678. You recently edited Basic English and noted in your edit summaries, "Removed repitition". It is not clear to me, though, what sort of repetition you were trying to reduce. Most of the changes seem to be removing internal links, but those don't appear to have been duplicate links. Internal links to related pages, such as grammar concepts linked from an article about a language project, are very much in keeping with Wikipedia's style. Was there some problem I am not seeing that your edits were meant to remedy? Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about excessive links. Sorry, I misunderstood it when I was editing, I won’t do it again Ethan2345678 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethan. I received your message about not inserting foreign-language words unless absolutely necessary, but there was no link to show me which article I edited. I am guessing that it was the one on the Swahili Coast. This change was necessary, although I agree that the Arabic script was not. "Swahili" does NOT come from the Arabic "sahil" (coast), it comes from the plural, "sawahil" (coasts). I give here a link to Wiktionary for you to check. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Swahili. Stephen Lloyd

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.114.64.245 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Greetings Ethan2345678! I had informed you about your illogical and inappropriate edit summaries, but after acknowledging my previous message about the same, you have again started using those useless edit summaries [1], [2], [3]. "Updated since your last visit" is not a summary of the edits that you have made to a page. Please do your best to always fill in the field with an edit summary which helps others to understand the intention of your edit. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. A list of commonly used edit summary abbreviations can be found at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Thanks! Peter Ormond 💬 11:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just curious, how are you warning users when you revert their changes? For example, [here], it looks like you just copied and pasted the template code into the user's talk page. If so, that is incorrect. These templates are meant to be WP:SUBSTed into place (and not transcluded, and FOR SURE not just applied by copying and pasting the template's code). Please see the examples on the doc page for the template (for instance template:uw-vandalism1) for examples on how to do this.

Please include the article name (usually the first parameter to the template, in the case of most user warning templates), so that the user can easily locate the article that the template applies to.

And DON'T forget to sign your posts!

Please consider using Twinkle, as suggested above by another editor. It automates this and of the above so you don't have to worry about anything. Thanks, Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethan2345678: I posted to the section about you at AN/I, because I'm afraid it looks as if you're not good at judging whether an edit was useful or should be reverted. The editor above is correct, there is nothing inherently wrong with using a foreign word, especially to explain something; and you gave them a very strong warning. This edit was at least in part constructive. I disagree with the above advice that you should use Twinkle; I know you want to help, but I think you should try doing simpler tasks.

You were told at AN/I about how we classify articles as stubs, starts, C-class, Good Articles, and so on. We also have maintenance categories that articles are put into based on the tags that editors place at the top. One place to get ideas for types of problems that have been identified and that you might be able to fix is here; they are arranged by type of problem, and the simpler tasks are at the top. I suggest you might find interesting and useful stuff to do under the "Fix spelling and grammar" heading (linked at the bottom to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, but that is organized by date of report; the actual tags on the articles are often useful, telling you what the usage problem is) or "Fix wikilinks" (Category:All articles with too few wikilinks lists the articles by title), or if you're good at search, "Check and add references" (Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification). Another suggestion that doesn't seem to be on that page is articles with bare URLs (sometimes called "link rot"); going to the URL and identifying it in the footnote is useful for both readers and future editors, and if you find it's now a broken link, look it up on the Wayback machine and add an archive URL and the identifying info. I hope these ideas are helpful to you. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I’ve started using Twinkle and it’s really practical, thank you for suggestion. Ethan2345678 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Yngvadottir as I was the editor to suggest this. It is my personal belief that using Twinkle actually makes things more simple - such as warning vandals - and Ethan has claimed that using Twinkle is "practical", so we'll see how things pan out with regard to this. Patient Zero^talk 02:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{subst: article name inserted here}} when I warn vandals. Ethan2345678 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On June 9 on this page you thanked me for telling you to stop adding titles as if they were names. Yet you continue to do things like this several weeks later, and in this case not only adding a title as a name but a title that the woman has not had since 1980! Are you going to stop it, or are we going to have to take action against you for disregarding warnings and pretending to behave? I am very disappointed in you now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I’m going to stop it Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what your thinking was when making this edit? The unregistered user who reverted you was correct, and you didn't leave an edit summary so I'm interested to know why it was that you made this mistake and what you'll do in future to avoid similar mistakes. — Bilorv (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry making those mistakes, I thought that they vandalized the page Ethan2345678 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reassured by this, Ethan, because I see from above that you've been apologising for mistakes and then doing the same things again. What made you think that it was a vandal edit—that it removed a lot of content? And how might you change your behaviour so that you don't make the same mistake again—maybe spend more time thoroughly reading what content was removed and checking that it is content that needs to be re-added? — Bilorv (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did he erroneously revert he also took the extra step of rushing to falsely accuse me of vandalism issuing a "final warning".[5] Did he even read the edit summary? He cannot possibly have read the diffs. Disagreeing with an edit is one thing and mistakes happen but false accusations are deliberate and this shows a serious lack of good faith.

He now claims he is sorry but he did nothing to show he was sorry. He did not explain or apologize for either the revert or the false accusation until he was challenged. See also WP:BOOMARANG

Actions are more important than words. What would be better than an apology would be if Ethan learned an important lesson and in future made sure to read the diff and also followed the WP: SIMPLE rules by providing clear and meaningful edit summaries. -- 109.78.207.64 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just too much. Almost everything you're doing is wrong, and you are unable or unwilling to change your approach. I assume you're editing in good faith, but that is sometimes not enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been really disappointing to see in all fairness, Floquenbeam. I was hoping that they would be able to learn along the way from their mistakes but unfortunately this hasn’t been the case. Ethan, my advice to you would be to brush up on your English over the time you are gone (I get the impression from your writing conventions that English is your second language, do forgive me if I’m wrong). Indefinite does not mean permanent, and if you are able to show some maturity and better understanding in six months’ time to a year, I would be willing to take you on under a mentorship. I do see potential in you as an editor and appreciate your anti-vandalism efforts. Take care, Patient Zero^talk 18:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ethan2345678 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’m so sorry on what I did. I’ve started to familarize on encyclopedia’s guidelines and policies. I’ll stop my disruptive editing when I get unblocked, I want to thank you. After I get unblocked, I’ll stop editing about names, overlinks and anything that’s disruptive. (I’ll mainly patrol vandalisms on Wikipedia) I’ll stop it. Ethan2345678 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please spend about six months learning more about at least some of our policies and maturing as a person, then you may request unblock. I doubt anyone will unblock you at this time. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ethan, your vandalism patrolling is one of the major concerns people have about you—this unblock request shows that you haven't understood what editors have been saying. I gather that you're quite young (it's very impressive that you're bilingual, by the way), but even lots of adults don't yet have the maturity needed to edit Wikipedia—it's a really, really complicated website where the decisions you have to make (like in vandalism patrol) are difficult and eagerness or good intentions are not always enough. Not many children at all are able to edit here successfully—but Fandom wikis (pick a TV show or video game you enjoy) can be good communities to join instead. I think you should listen to Patient Zero and put this experience to one side for a while, revisiting the idea of an unblock request in a year or so. 331dot is putting it mildly: there is not even the slightest chance that you will be unblocked now if you continue making unblock requests. — Bilorv (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back in next year. Ethan2345678 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Morin is French, an interview of him by CRNS (the national center for scientific research) is a source. Why do you decide to just erase contributions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioneldelar234 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #45995 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• is open.

• proposed unblock conditions
  • Only one account
  • No new page patrolling or recent changes patrolling
  • No moving stubs to draft space.
  • No editing of names
  • set preferences to require edit summaries

• @Patient Zero: has agreed to mentor-- please make suggestions if you like.
• Will need to be unblocked before he can approach the Stewards for un locking.
• No addition of content copyrighted elsewhere.
• ?

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Deepfriedokra - turns out I never received your ping. What is the situation at present? Patient Zero^talk 09:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patient Zero:

Well, the UTRS expired, but the unblock conditions remain. They emailed ArbCom according to the ticket. Ethan2345678 is globally locked, which makes things ten times harder.

I don't know (cannot know) the ArbCom decision, but I presume it was not favorable. This is the limbo of the globally locked. Ethan2345678, I guess you can UTRS again if you haven't been told to wait. You could include the unblock conditions if you agree to them. Penultimately, we need checkuser approval, which we can seek at UTRS. Ultimately, if we get you unblocked on ENWIKI, we need to persuade the Stewards to unlock. Wish I could sound more hopeful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update, Deepfriedokra. Unfortunately, I too am not incredibly hopeful that this situation will change; at the very least, he does need to agree to these conditions. I would agree that it may be worth Ethan submitting another appeal via UTRS providing he is able to, and taking it from there? Patient Zero^talk 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there is an appeal before ArbCOom, I will make sure UTRS access is restored. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has received an appeal from Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs) and would like to hear feedback from the community before coming to a final decision. You can post comments either in the linked discussion below or send them to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Appeal from Ethan2345678