User talk:3f45188

Hi 3f45188! 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Heyallkatehere (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made 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 → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! MossOnALog ^Talk 21:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@3f45188, please see the above message. MossOnALog ^Talk 22:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please heed these messages. Your continued editing without summaries is disruptive. Crs5827 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (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) 01:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (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) 23:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gulf Cooperation Council, 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) 00:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello,

I do not like to revert people, but you latest edit to the Rama Duwaji page did not remove the duplicated citation. It seems to have removed the hyperallergic interview link and replaced it with an earlier citation that does appear to have been duplicated.

Pietrus1 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Maidan casualties 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 → Editor → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

3f45188, you have been notified 4 times and you haven't acknowledged or tried to improve. Do you want to be included in the category of problematic users? Jay 💬 02:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

no sorry I can work on it 3f45188 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A bare URL and 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) 00:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title 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) 22:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 19:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pamiris, 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) 18:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In your recent edits, I'm concerned that you might be reducing text-source integrity. (I reverted one.) Is there an important principle that you are upholding by making changes like these, and given your substantial number of similar edits, could you explain how it applies generally? What efforts are you making to balance that principle against other relevant ones? TheFeds 03:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

i do not really know genuinely 3f45188 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to pause this immediately. Edits like [1], among many others, are taking a sentence with a reference, and changing it to a paragraph with a reference. This means that future readers don't know if the preceding paragraph is in its entirety supported by the source, or just the last sentence. I am asking you for a clear explanation (several sentences, citing Wikipedia guidelines or consensus) for why you think this is justifiable on such a large scale. TheFeds 21:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not really know. 3f45188 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I may have an idea, but I do not know how I can explain it substantively. The best way for me to explain it may be that I think that the references may be redundant in some way, perhaps that the references are the same thing and are used in succession. By trimming them in the way you are implying, it seems to me that it is more clear, perhaps. This is supposed to be a site that values clarity, and the way I see it, I am making it a bit more clear. I apologize if the above is confusing, but it is the best way I can explain it. 3f45188 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If that does not suffice, I apologize in advance. 3f45188 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Let me give you another example, and an opportunity to try explaining substantively again. At The Holocaust in Bulgaria, you changed (in part):

−

The (削除) [[Law (削除ここまで) for Protection of the (削除) Nation]] (削除ここまで) prohibited the granting of Bulgarian citizenship to (削除) Jews;<ref (削除ここまで)(削除) (削除ここまで)(削除) name="ragaru2" (削除ここまで)(削除) (削除ここまで)(削除) /> (削除ここまで) it prohibited Jews from holding elected office or serving in the civil service; it prohibited them from serving in a military capacity and mandated that they complete their national service in the [[Construction Corps (Bulgaria)|Labour Corps]].<ref name="ragaru2" />

+

The (追記) Law (追記ここまで) for Protection of the (追記) Nation (追記ここまで) prohibited the granting of Bulgarian citizenship to (追記) Jews; (追記ここまで) it prohibited Jews from holding elected office or serving in the civil service; it prohibited them from serving in a military capacity and mandated that they complete their national service in the [[Construction Corps (Bulgaria)|Labour Corps]].<ref name="ragaru2" />

There are 2 ways to interpret the first version: either that "ragaru2" supports the 1st & 3rd prohibitions (but not the 2nd); or that "ragaru2" supports the entire thing and is redundantly cited. There are 2 ways to interpret the second (your) version: either that "ragaru2" supports the entire thing; or that "ragaru2" only supports the 3rd prohibition (but not the 1st & 2nd).

You made that edit, and it changed the possible meaning, so please explain to me why. TheFeds 23:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I interpreted that ragaru2 supports the entire thing. I believe that the reference explains that all of the prohibitions mentioned and thus makes it not redundant. I did not intend to change the meaning in such a way as to make it unclear because I believe that in a line/paragraph, everything before a reference (and after the preceding reference, if there is one) directly applies to the reference in question. As a result, I thought ragaru2 applied to the entire text except you provided, so it is redundantly cited. 3f45188 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm glad that you are considering it systematically. But wouldn't you agree that your belief is one of multiple reasonable interpretations, and as a result, when you change from one structure to the other, it is strongly preferable to check the original source to ensure that you aren't introducing a discrepancy? Did you check the source before editing, after editing, or not at all? What about for the hundreds of other similar edits? TheFeds 00:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I regret to say not always, but I know I can do better. 3f45188 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I can make a conscious effort to do so. 3f45188 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]