User talk:Lertaheiko

Hi Lertaheiko! 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

Happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Daisytheduck. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert A. Good 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 your 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. Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 01:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Bagumba. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Johnny Buss, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2024 (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 Johnny Buss, 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. Specifically, you can refer to MOS:OVERLINK about unneeded links and MOS:NOPIPE about piping redirects. —Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Johnny Buss, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. That contradicts that his page says he was still married to another woman. Per WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia ... Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. Finally, WP:TMZ is not reliable enough. —Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I've had to revert a lot of this editor's changes because they keep marking major changes as minor as well as removing a lot of "unused" parameters from infoboxes. Mason (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Both the mairrage info for Johnny and Christy contradicted each other. They should now be all consistent with each other. Thank you. Lertaheiko (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lertaheiko! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gorgias 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. Mason (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Smasongarrison. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gregory Nagy 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove unused parameters like you did here. It's disruptive and makes it more difficult for people to add that information. Mason (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was helpful since it makes the editing screen less cumbersome/bloated. I'll only remove them when it doesen't make sence within the context of the article, and ones that are deprecaded. Lertaheiko (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think its a good idea for you to remove ones that don't make sense within the article context, given that you're still new. I think you should spend your time learning the ropes of wikipedia. For example, you've been marking a lot of things as minor that aren't. And you seem to not understand that interarticle consistency is not a priority compared to sourcing. Mason (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Smasongarrison. I noticed that you recently removed content from Isabelle Cogitore 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop removing values from infoboxes Mason (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There weren't any unused parameters in the article. Lertaheiko (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not explain why you removed content. Further, you're at risk of an edit war by reverting reverts. Please slow down and take the advice given to you on your talk page. Mason (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often 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. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It was around 15% before, but is now at 34%. Lertaheiko (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be much much higher. Mason (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Go into your Preferences. There is an option you can opt for that will remind you when you edit and don't leave an edit summary. That way, you don't have to remember because the system won't accept your edit unless you provide an edit summary. If you look at experienced editors, they always include an edit summary to help other editors understand why they did what they did. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lertaheiko,

For an editor who has only been active for a month, you have a LOT of warning messages on your User talk page. This is more than some editors receive over the course of an entire year. They mean that experienced editors have run into some of your edits which they have found problematic. I can see where all of these notices could seem overwhelming but if you want to be an editor for the long-term, it would be to your benefit to read over the problems they point out so that you can correct your editing mistakes.

If you have any questions about editing on Wikipedia, please feel free to bring them to the Teahouse where you can receive advice, support and a second opinion. Good luck with your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Jim Buss. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please don't link successive geographical units per MOS:GEOLINK (e.g. don't link California separately in Los Angeles, California). —Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Dippy 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. Stop claiming the reverts are unexplained. They're not, and you claiming otherwise is inaccurate. I have explained these issues on your talk page. Mason (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isabella Binney Cogswell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Gial Ackbar. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kerbal Space Program 2, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gial Ackbar (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Kerbal Space Program 2, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. In this context, original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources don't explicitly say. Thank you. Apenguinlover<talk>() 23:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Nebkaure Khety, 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. You changed sourced dates; this is a BCE article as for WP:ERA; date of death is unsupported; "von" is integral part of Jurgen von Beckerath's name. Lone-078 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Setut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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. Lone-078 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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 Setut, you may be blocked from editing. Source does not support the dates you claim and you are well aware of it. So please quit it. Lone-078 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the source said that he was active around 2160 and 2130 BC. Lertaheiko (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Susan Halabi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The date in the Hubbel Palmer article was in the infobox. I just added it after the name where it should go. Lertaheiko (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It is unsourced. It should be removed or sourced, not repeated. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. I removed a category because it was unsourced. Lertaheiko (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tem (queen). Once and for all, stop inferring/inventing death dates by citing sources that do not explicitly state them. This is plain simple original research. Lone-078 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the source says that "she outlived her husband", King Mentuhotep II, who died around 2009 BC. It then says that she "was buried during her son's reign." Her son, Mentuhotep III reigned around 2000 BC. I suppose she could have been buried years after she died, but there are no sources for that. (also, thanks for fixing the Dieter Arnold link.) Lertaheiko (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop rewriting taxoboxes to remove geologic time periods. It is standard to include them, and featured articles like Tyrannosaurus include them. If you don't stop I may be forced to report you to administrators Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You had also removed BP references at Oruanui eruption which have a precise meaning (ie years before 1950, not now) and yet again not understanding some finer points in the manual of style. In this case my subsequent corrective edits improved the lead and perhaps infobox so the net effect of correcting your edit was positive for the community. I suggest you refrain from editing dates in scientific/technical orientated articles until you have developed the necessary knowledge. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have done further corrections to dates on Akahoya eruption which you changed after the above comment. You failed to check references and removed the key reference making a mess in the citation list- now corrected to bring us back to Smith et als's date, according to latest calibration done by Okuno in 2019 and failed to adhere to MOS:CIRCA. ChaseKiwi (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I just meant to change the date to something more reliable. I made sure to add multiple sources to prevent the perception that it was made up. Lertaheiko (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources and debate on dates existed in the bulk of the article so it was never made up which is even more unlikely with a key archaeological marker tephra layer which has had multiple independent study. My technical Japanese is not that great but numbers and correction reasons were stated but not fully used by you. At this time I have kept {{circa}} in the lead as using terms like about which are more readable may lack a certain precision. I hope this is useful and know many of my own past contributions have needed improvement ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that several editors have already advised you of this. But, per WP:ES, contributors are expected to provide a brief explanation of the edits made to a Wikipedia page. In this recent edit (and more/most others from what I can tell) you did not provide any explanation/justification for the change you made. For example, without explanation, you changed "portal tomb" to "dolmen" (despite the title of the article using "portal tomb" and multiple sources in the article [including NMS record, Powell entry and almanac source ] also using "portal tomb"). Absent an edit summary explanation, I can only assume that your change to a person name (so that it no longer reflected the source) and change to a county name (so that it no longer reflected MOS:IRISHCOUNTIES) were both made in error. And so I have reverted these changes. If you have a justification/explanation for these changes, then please take it to Talk. And, ideally, start using more complete edit summaries. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

On the article about the tombs, the title is Dolmen, not portal tomb. This usually means that name is more popular.

I do have edit summaries most of the time. I sometimes don't add one when I only need to add/change a few things. Lertaheiko (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"I sometimes don't add one when I only need to add/change a few things" - given the many complaints above, this is not a good approach. Do them all the time, like you are supposed to. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This edit is not "fixing a link". Please provide proper edit summaries (and stop edit-warring). Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

United kingdom was linked, so I removed the link. You can see it removed here. I'll leave the rest of the contributions be. Lertaheiko (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Khentetka, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Iunre. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Prince Djedi, you may be blocked from editing. Lone-078 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Hemetre. You went from adding unsourced material (mostly dates) to simply adding a ref name="0" template to invoke a source that would fictitiously support your claims. STOP trying to cheat the system. Lone-078 (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It says she was a royal woman of the fourth dynasty. Lertaheiko (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

So I ask you again to provide the page of the source you used. Furthermore, if that's what the source says, why would you use it to support instead your claims that she flourished c.2550 BC and that she was buried in Giza? Lone-078 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence says that she was from the 4th dynasty. The source that is used cites pages 267–274. Hemetre may have been a daughter or granddaughter of Khafre, who rained c. 2558 – 2532 BC.

In the Tomb section, it says Hemetre's tomb (G 8464) is located in the Central Field which is part of the Giza Necropolis. Uses source 4 (Porter, Bertha and Moss, Rosalind, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs and Paintings Volume III: Memphis, Part I Abu Rawash to Abusir. 2nd edition; revised and augmented by Dr Jaromir Malek, 1974. Retrieved from gizapyramids.org) as a citation. The Giza Necropolis is in Giza. Lertaheiko (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

My fault on the tomb. About the first point, in order to give a date you need a source that explicitly says that Hemetre flourished on that date. Needless to say, I haven't found this date anywhere in the source. What you have instead done, by your own admission, is combining two pieces of information:

A) Hemetre may have been the daughter or granddaughter of Khafre;

B) Khafre reigned c.2558 – 2532 BC. Thus:

A+B=C) Hemetre flourished c.2550 BC.

Regardless of whether A and B are sourced or not, this is original research, more specifically WP:SYNTHESIS and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Lone-078 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Felipe Falanghe 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/Felipe Falanghe 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.

~ A412 ^talk! 02:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Lertaheiko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Andreas Waldetoft, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John R. Casani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shepseskaf, 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. Same issues over and over again; cherry picking dates ignoring the uncertainty, WP:ERA, unilaterally changing from "pharaoh" to "king"... Lone-078 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop making stylistic changes to articles, especially ones that introduce errors. Periods should not be removed from captions that contain full sentences per MOS:CAPTION: However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period. You have done this to image captions on several articles. Please stop doing this it requires reversion.

You also insist on changing 'Fifth Dynasty' to '5th Dynasty' in the infobox despite the fact that near every article in the topic area consistently uses 'Fifth Dynasty' throughout the whole article. While either is fine, if there is a consistent usage in an article it should not be changed on preference. If there is a case of mixed-use, then whichever is more predominant should be used. In Neferirkare's article the phrase 'Fifth Dynasty' was employed 14 times and '5th Dynasty' exactly zero.

You regularly employ one word edit summaries whilst making a large series of changes that are unrelated to the edit summary. For example on Neferefre's article you use the edit summary 'children', but most of your edit is replacing 'pharaoh' with 'king' (I have mixed views on this question, but afaik there is no consensus to remove 'pharaoh' from Wikipedia articles on Egyptian kings) among other stylistic changes, and altering the phrasing of speculative statements into concrete ones without specifying sources; there is also an instance of removing of a period from a caption that should be there. The only part of that edit relating to 'children' is removing them from the infobox. I know why you removed them, because it is speculative rather than concrete content, but that's not adequately explained by the word 'children', let alone all the rest of the changes. The same issue with a similar edit on Sahure carrying the same misleading edit summary, except there you also converted prose into a list for no reason and removed periods from two captions when neither should have been removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

1: I fixed the dynasty and captions. I initially changed it because captions with 1 word or sentence usually don't need periods.

2: I'll try to be more specific with adding better edit summaries in the future for big edits.

3: Pharaohs were called kings at the time. They werent called pharaohs until the 18th dynasty.

4: A lot of changes were from articles of the persons family members. For example, Sahure's father is listed as Userkaf. However, as seen here, it isn't known for sure. If you think something is innacurate, let me know. Lertaheiko (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

On pharaoh's, I and most other editors in the topic space are aware that pr-ꜥꜣ as a personal title is an Eighteenth Dynasty innovation. Nevertheless, the general public understands 'pharaoh' to mean 'king of ancient Egypt', and that usage has persisted across Wikipedia's articles from the Pre-Dynastic period to the Eighteenth Dynasty inclusive. You may occasionally see 'ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh)' as in the lede of Ni-Neith, but articles that avoid the term altogether, such as Amenemhat IV which carries the one (afaik) unavoidable instance in the infobox, are quite rare. Some editors use 'pharaoh' in the lede or opening sentence and then king everywhere else (myself included). There is not a firm rule on Wikipedia regarding its usage.

User:Iry-Hor, who wrote all nine featured-article kingly/pharaohnic biographies of the Fifth Dynasty, would be the best positioned to clarify any discrepancies between those articles. It was a multi-year project bringing each one to featured status, and it is possible that information is reflected in one article but not another. If I recall correctly, they worked backwards from Unas to Userkaf, so that article should be the most recent. Unfortunately, they are much less active as an editor than they used to be.

Thank you for the first two points acknowledgements. If you encounter a caption that contains only a sentence fragment, then the period can be removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, there is also a dedicated Wikiproject – Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt – for the topic space. You can also ask questions or join there. It is fairly small, and has maybe a handful of consistently active editors (of different specializations) that patrol the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shemay, 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. I'm getting quite tired of your persistent addition of unsourced dates, and even more when you put a fake source after a date which actually doesn't support that. And you are uselessly and unilaterally switching from infobox dignitary to infobox royalty on every article about dignitaries. Lone-078 (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Old Kingdom of Egypt. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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 made up a date, as usual. None of the dates listed match yours, as usual. Lone-078 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Merenhor, you may be blocked from editing. Lone-078 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Manetho. Lone-078 (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I changed the infobox of every old kingdom Egyptian vizier to use the Infobox Egyptian dignitary but you undid it and changed it back to Infobox royalty, vizier aren't royal and Infobox Egyptian dignitary is meant for positions like vizier and has many advative over Infobox royalty like using the color used in other templates about ancient Egypt and having Egypt specific parameters, it is also used on all pages for viziers not from the old kingdom. so why did you go back to Infobox royalty PharaohCrab (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The royalty infobox is better since it better shows their role as vizier, as it is in bold and highlited. It is It also does not include as many parameters as the royalty one, such as birth and death. I originally created most of the infoboxes using the royalty template since it shows the persons roles clearly. Another similar infobox template is the officeholder template. I thought the royalty template would be better since I thought the officeholder template whs meant for officials who were elected in elections. Since officials were chosen by the monarch of Egypt, it would make more sense using the royalty template. However, I found that this is not always the case. Since Viziers aren't a part of the royalty, I would not be opposed to changing the templates to the infobox officeholder one if you would like that. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

when I was changing the infoboxes I found that there were very few parameters that did not have a equivalent in Infobox Egyptian dignitary and none that were particularly impotent or in more then one articles (including the birth and death parameters) so little is lost in a switch to Infobox Egyptian dignitary but as previously mention switching brings more consistency and and makes it easier for newer editors to understand and is simpler as for the other thing you brought up about the titles the Egyptian dignitary infobox I just changed that PharaohCrab (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that in a number of pharaoh FA articles, you have added definite absolute dates for pharaohs, lists of children and ancestries. Unfortunately, it is not accurate to provide dates and ancestries since Egyptologists always disagree on these, so the only way to present the information without mistake is to give all scholars' opinions equally, not to present one over the others as the correct answer in the infobox. In general, the identity of the parents of a king is almost always in doubt. Finally, lists may be easier to parse to get the info but contain less accurate presentation and ruin the layout of FA articles. I think they should be avoided.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

please read my comments. There are several people called Medunefer and the photos from the Turin Museum belong not to the doctor. best wishesUdimu (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lone-078 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

These edits might look OK now, but the numbers will change as sections above get archived. I would advise you to change the way you refer to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tjetjy, 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. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Iah (queen), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Iytjenu, you may be blocked from editing. Lone-078 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lone-078 It has 2 dates that contradict themselves. 2100 BC or 2150 BC. Lertaheiko (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It's sad to see that, as usual, you have no intention of giving up making up dates. Lone-078 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Only one of those two dates carries an inline citation. You should refer to the cited source (Leprohon 2013), see which date is being used by that source, and then amend the date to match the source. As I have that source and it is available on Google Books preview as well, I have already checked it. None of the dates in the article are supported (not 2150 BC, 2125 BC, nor 2100 BC). Leprohon does not give dates for individual rulers, but for dynasties. For the Eighth Dynasty he gives the dates: 2181 – 2161 BCE (p. 44). If citing Leprohon, fl. 2125 BC is untenable; Leprohon has the dynasty end in 2161 BCE, which is 36 years prior to when Iytjenu is currently listed as flourishing. Considering this is the FIP, I'd add that with such limited data very few sources would deign to provide regnal dates for individual kings. Even a source like eds. Hornung, Krauss, and Warburton (2006) that is dedicated specifically to trying to develop a comprehensive chronology of ancient Egyptian history shies away from attempting it for the FIP. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Iah (queen). Lone-078 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SnowyWatcher. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gordon_S._Kino 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aimee Knight. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please stop making the same multiple incorrect changes to this page. The birth certificate on Wikimedia shows year of birth. And the sources on the page show LGBTQ not LGBT SnowyWatcher (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Lertaheiko,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Marguerite Rubenstein for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Josey Wales ^Parley 22:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Marguerite Rubenstein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Agent 007 (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Iah (queen), 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. Disruptive like making up dates, for example, which unfortunately continues to be one of your specialties. Lone-078 (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Billy Bob Faulkingham, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! 331dot (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Lertaheiko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Felipe Falanghe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Lertaheiko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Andreas Waldetoft".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marjorie_K._Eastman, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie K. Eastman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm NebY. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jennifer Harden, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! NebY (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Eli Zeira. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. NebY (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added an explanation for my changes. Lertaheiko (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Good - that's the first step. Now you need consensus. Similarly with Mohenjo-daro and Ptahhotep, where you've repeated your changes today, making that four times in all in the case of Ptahhotep. All the guidance above about edit-warring and reaching consensus applies in those cases too, as it does across the whole of the encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Mohenjo-daro. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on either strong national ties to the topic or if the topic is tied to an armed forces. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. See MOS:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word 'era', or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." NebY (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Joseph Christophe, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Nubhetepti-khered when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Middlebury Cemetery. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your stub on Henry Sheldon in the new article queue. I would suggest copy-pasting that information to the article on the museum, editing it up a little bit, and then converting the Henry Sheldon page into being an automatic redirect to the museum page. I doubt he will be regarded as Wikipedia "notable". Best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to Sithathoriunet and have opened a discussion on ancient Egyptian project page regarding a pattern of editing behaviours in the topic space (but not constrained to it) for a conversation of involved and uninvolved editors (it's a small project so only a few active editors will respond). There is also a separate discussion there involving you that you have been pinged to, but I don't know if you are aware of that. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for administrative intervention in a chronic, year-long issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of Wikipedia for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Communication is required. You have performed more than 50 edits since the above notification but have not responded. Many issues have been raised on this talk and at ANI August 2025 prior to a week-long block for persistent addition of unsourced content (see #October 2025 above). You will be unable to edit articles until providing a suitable explanation at the ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)