April 2023[edit]

Hi Dinosauro47! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Odin several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Odin, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not going to revert, it was a bit disappointing not being able to keep my edit, but I don't want to piss anyone Dinosauro47 (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted because I wanted to create a separate topic, just for Runic magic and didn't want to write it all over again Dinosauro47 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and why did the guy talk about copyright, nobody knows the author of the poetic edda and it's almost 800 years old Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 (1)[edit]

Hello, I'm Haploidavey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hades, 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. In particular, the addition (or restoration) of an "equivalent" deity to the infobox, with no supporting scholarly sources or discussion in the article itself. Haploidavey (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources cited are primary sources. Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources cited are primary sources. Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to publish elements from primary sources, but the interpretation and discussion of what these primary sources mean must be left to modern, scholarly, secondary, mainstream sources. The use of primary sources for any other purpose is original research or synthesis of sources, which is not allowed. Frustrating sometimes, but you'll get used to it... Haploidavey (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the source claimed to support the Etruscan equivalent (in the introduction) doesn't even mention it. The edit has been in place for yonks, too. Not your doing, I know. Haploidavey (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one putting this Dinosauro47 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 (2)[edit]

Hi Dinosauro47! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what, we can discuss Dinosauro47 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to please stop deleting my edits, as you are clearly the only person having problems with them! they are from primary sources Dinosauro47 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This story that Hades does not appear in many sources is not true and no the page does not describe the powers and functions well, you can by the cited sources Dinosauro47 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will repost the edits and please do not remove my edits, the fact that Hades' page has more stuff on hymn to demeter, than his own orpic hymn and other sources where much more characterization as you can see in the cited sources is ridiculous in my opinion, so please don't take my edits away Dinosauro47 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll pass the info for other party of page like the Other Work Dinosauro47 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 23=[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Knight, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]