User talk:FactArchivist

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The New Tetris, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. mobygames is also an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source per WP:VG/RS Waxworker (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I understand mobygames may be usergenerated, not sure about that, but in this situation I would recommend using it for this source because it adds more valuable information about this game. There is no other better source available in the internet for this particular game, since it's very niche, than mainly user reviews and experiences. FactArchivist (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the game as niche - it has plenty of reviews already on the article and Tetris in general is a massive series. User-generated sources are unreliable and should not be used, and there are reliable sources available. For older games, it's generally better to consult gaming magazines from the time rather than modern websites - Archive.org may be helpful in this regard, and the sources already in the reception table may be used for further prose. Waxworker (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok will have a look thank you. FactArchivist (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Turbonilla javii did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Hi, I noticed you added a large paragraph without an edit summary. Please include brief edit summaries for significant additions, so other editors can understand and review your changes. Thanks! TeaToasst (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

FactArchivist (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That's my bad seems I forgot it in that particular case. There is always an automatically created edit summary which contains the chapter that was edited. I will pay attention to always give more details what exactly has been edited, except minor edits. Thank you. FactArchivist (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Robert Allan Black, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:OVERLINK. CodeTalker (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Your suggestion is that I have used a link when it seemed redundant in that context. I have decided to have Washington DC linked because Texas was already linked so I wanted to keep that style persistent. FactArchivist (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that you linked names of major countries, such as Japan and the United States, and well known settlements and municipalities, such as Washington DC, San Francisco, and California. As MOS:OVERLINK states, major country names should almost never be linked, and well known municipalities should be linked only when there is risk of confusion. The country names were the most egregious problem, but regarding the municipalities, it would probably have been better to delink Texas rather than add more such links. CodeTalker (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Totally understood. Thank you for pointing that out. I will pay attention to this. FactArchivist (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Please remember not to link country names. You have done this again in your edit to Khurram Waqar. CodeTalker (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Usually yes, but I in that particular case I added it because I believe a lot of people do not know what a "Pakistani" is. There is nothing else written regarding his nationality in the article so I believe it adds an important fact for readers. Also there are very few links in that article added so this does not disrupt the reading flow. FactArchivist (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Allama al-Hilli, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorific title was added. 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) 19:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I have not done such thing. I have improved the article and afterwards deleted only that particular issue because it was solved. FactArchivist (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@FactArchivist can you provide diffs that show how you improved the article? Looking at the history of Guy Masterson, I can find only one edit by you -- this one, in which you removed all four maintenance templates but made no changes to the text of the article. CodeTalker (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It was pretty long time go. Not sure why you cant find any edit. Seems to me like I checked the article and deleted the issues that I could not find in the article. FactArchivist (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

FactArchivist (talk · contribs) has made only the one edit to this article. Which account were you using previously? --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please respond. --Hipal (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal I had in mind that I did more than 1 edit. In any case, at the time I have removed the template it looked to me like that respective issue was solved. FactArchivist (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hipal (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page David Hirlav, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the template because there were no objections to it. There is no AI language in the article anymore. FactArchivist (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not the reality of the situation at all.

Continue in this manner, and a block or ban may be determined to be necessary. --Hipal (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal It is not you to decide that, fortunately. Please try to be less emotional. FactArchivist (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal Very funny. Please stop harassing and lying on other people's profiles. Nothing of what you say ever happened, you are making up things. FactArchivist (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What's this post on Hipal's page for? Retaliation for their perfectly civil warnings and alerts on your page? Please don't do that. And never post such a general claim of "disruptive edits" on anybody without even giving an example — it's quite useless as well as offensive. This is a warning from an administrator. Bishonen | tålk 20:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC).

Please read the post I left there. I am reacting calm and professional to a serious misconduct from his side. I'm not sure if you are a second account of Hipal, in case you're not I would like to know why you would side with him after his misconduct. I am merely stating facts on his page. FactArchivist (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ohh, that's nice. A second account of Hipal? You think Hipal has a second account who is an administrator and has been on Wikipedia for more than 20 years? You may want to check simple facts before throwing out wild accusations. And no, you are not "merely stating facts" on Hipal's page, you are "merely" making unsubstantiated aspersions — as I said, there's not even one example of Hipal's supposedly disruptive edits. You need to stop attacking everybody and anybody who contradicts you; it's extremely unbecoming. Bishonen | tålk 02:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Hirlav 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hirlav until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Titanpoint 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanpoint until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)