Hello, TishoYanchev! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Bob Re-born (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted and removed few pictures in the Gallery section, in crop circle article. However, few hours later
all the picture and changes that i made, was removed.
When i went to view history there was this message - >
(Reverted 4 edits by TishoYanchev (talk): These don't add any value over what is already present. the function of a gallery is to explain the article not decorate it. pictures belong in W...)
I don't understand why my changes are removed ? I even added more see also references. Even they were removed.
Why it says These don't add any value over what is already present ? Did a machine automatically removed my changes ? Or was it
a real person ? Why did the person that removed it though that my pictures don't add value ?
I have done a lot of research regarding the subject, and the pictures i added was explicitly chosen. I wanted to make a
point about the meaning of the crop circle, so i arranged a few pictures that i chose in a specific order. I removed
two pictures that were there, because they were very random, and do not add any value to understanding the subject, in my opinion.
So, i don't understand why were my changes removed ? And not only the pictures, by the see also reference page as well ?
I added a wikipedia article of a crop circle researcher that has done a lot of research and contribution to understanding the
crop circles. Why was his article removed ?
Firstly I have reinserted the see-also item, I hadn't meant to delete that, although having looked I don't see what the link is - perhaps you can explain how he relates to crop circles as these are not mentioned in his article? Secondly I suggest you have a look at WP:IG. There are many crop circle images on Wikimedia Commons and we don't have to display every single one in the Wikipedia article. A few, carefully chosen images are sufficient. You added way too many into the gallery, something that was completely unnecessary. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore you should also have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Every single image that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is a blatant copyright violation. I have tagged all of these for deletion. You cannot simply upload to Wikimedia servers (Commons or Wikipedia) images which you find on the Internet. They have to be your own work, or the work of others released under an appropriate licence such as Creative Commons. The upload Wizard at Commons should be able to help you with this, but you need to read the links that it presents you with. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
Professor Gerald Hawkins was a famous British mathematician. Before he moved to the US, he was living in Britain. He made a lot of
research and contributions regarding the crop circle. He even have a books, with mathematical equations and research on the
crop circles, called (Fifth Theorem). He was introduced to the crop circles, by another crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews.
Colin Andrews is by no doubt, the world most famous crop circle researcher. He has done many documentaries, and written a lot of
books with scientific research. Professor Gerald Hawkins was inspired by his work, and has done a lot of research himself. Perhaps the
most famous contribution that he made, was decoding the first ever message that appeared as a crop circle. He had a team of
mathematicians working to decode the message. The message was (oppono astos). I don't know why there is so little information about
Prof. Gerald Hawkins, in his article, but anyone who research his name, will find a lot of video material with his presentations and
a lot of written information as well.
I was going to also include information about researchers and video material, as well.
I added 9 images, and removed 3. Why are 9 images ( too much ) and ( completely unnecessary ) ?
I though the purpose of Wikipedia was to give information to people. How come including 9 very specifically chosen images, that will
make a very good point and give a lot of information to people, ( completely unnecessary ) and ( too much ) ?
I have seen articles with more than 20 random images. The pictures i chose was very specific, and i believe very important to
anybody that is searching for information about the crop circles.
I understand that you only want to prevent spamming and malicious acts, however, i think it is not relevant and not appropriate to
edit any information, if you are not informed enough.
Yes, i am aware of the copyright violation. I was trying to solve that problem as well. The pictures are public domain and has been
duplicated and re-uploaded numerous times. I don't think one single (author) can be found. And also, the three images that were there,
were also public domain and i am sure, they were taken from a random website.
I didn't know how to solve the problem with licensing and copyright. I wanted to state that the pictures are public domain and
do not have an owner.
The fact that they were taken from a random website means they are most likely not public domain. As said above, you cannot just google images and upload them here. Just because they are on the internet multiple times doesn't make it okay for them to be copyright violations. If every other internet site jumps off a cliff, should we? Wikipedia allows anyone to edit anything they like, which includes removing an edit they have an issue with. If I have failed to answer any questions that you have, feel free to come to either my talk page or repost here, as I will watch this page. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your reply.
It was my first time trying to edit something in Wikipedia.
I read a lot of information about how to properly upload files and license them. But obviously i still don't understand the full process.
Could you please explain me, in simple steps how to license a file or how to upload a file which does not have any license ?
The first image i uploaded was a snap-shot taken from a youtube video. Am i suppose to ask the author of the video,
whether he agrees to make a snap-shot of his video ? And then what ? Must he write a .txt file with his agreement ?
Even so, the author will not reply to me, since he very rarely uses youtube anymore, and i am sure even when he does, he will not
bother to do anything for me. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do ? How to give a license to a snap-shot of an image ?
And if i decide to download a picture from a random website, how to license that picture ?
I think regarding the crop circle pictures, i personally know several people who are in fact the author or i.e. the owners of
multiple pictures that are now all over the internet, and some of those people are already dead. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do?
Please explain in simple steps how to license or upload a picture without breaking any violations.
Thank you.
It's really simple. If you cannot get an author to release a picture or video under a compatible licence then it cannot be used. If you cannot find a licence for a picture or video found somewhere on the Internet, then it cannot be used. However good you think an image is, or how useful it would be to have it on Wikipedia, if it isn't released for re-use under a compatible licence then it cannot be used. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain a little differently, just in case my explanation is better. If you find a picture, you have to assume someone has it copyrighted, because they legally own the copyright unless they explicitly release it to public domain or another copyleft license. You don't have the legal right to license a picture unless you took the picture yourself, and it doesn't include anyone else's picture or artwork. On the youtube video, you'd need to contact the author of the video, and have him send proof of identity and a release of copyright to Wikipedia, which being the internet he more than likely won't. Does that help? gwickwire | Leave a message 22:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are my changes removed? (extraterrestrial life)[edit]
In the article of (extraterrestrial life) i made two changes, and few hours later, both were removed. Why ?
I removed the a picture of of an animated crop circle image, because i know its fake, and therefore it cause misinformation.
Then i added another article (crop circles) to the (see also) list.
Why was the picture included again ? and why was the article i added removed ?
On the subject of the removal of the picture, "I know ----" isn't an excuse for anything on Wikipedia, it is original research. The article removal is more than likely a side effect of the re-addition of the image. gwickwiretalkedits 22:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your reply.
There are several things i don't understand.
First is, why does somebody that obviously lack any information on the subject, simple removes my article and the excuse is
side-effect ?
If an admin or whoever removed my article, is completely uninformed on the subject, why he has the right to just remove
whatever he wants ?
Second, about the image i removed. I have spoken with a crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews, and he told me about
this specific crop circle that he spoke with the people who made it, and with many people who saw the process, since it took
several days to complete it. It should be considered as art and not crop circle much less as something related to
extraterrestrial life. If my words are not good enough evidence then maybe the person who is so concern about this article
should contact Colin Andrews himself and speak with him. This image is causing misinformation.
I don't understand, why would somebody remove my article but not remove that image ? Obviously the person that is
responsible is not informed enough.
Sorry for being too harsh.
Because no matter what you know, you can't put it in Wikipedia unless you can source a reliable source. Not yourself, not an interview you did, not anything like that. gwickwiretalkedits 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your reply.
Just an hour ago, i added (crop circles) as an article in the (see also) list again, and again it was removed. Why ?
Who is the person that keeps removing this article ? This time i didn't remove the image, i only added (crop circle) as an
(see also) list article. Why its being removed again ?
Hello, I'm Aleenf1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 2020 Summer Olympics without 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: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the 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! Aleenf1 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Western culture exists is a widely accepted thing. I can agree with your statements; the term is used and abused, and, as a concept, is fundamentally wrong. But who cares about what we think. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the term is abused, and fundamentally wrong, then why did you reverse my edit?
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Chicago school of economics, 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. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that your last contributions, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarize 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 the 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. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I have answered and replied to all the arguments and questions towards me. I did not receive any answer for 2 days, so i decided to edit again the changes that i proposed and argued for. I am not the one reversing the changes, it is you who are reversing the changes without adding any constructive argument or cooperating. You and the others just repeat the same narrative, without actually answering my questions or addressing my arguments, and you keep reverting my changes without any reason. I did my best to do all those things! My last edit covers all the demands other users had, they have not said anything against them! So why are you again reversing my edits? I am doing my best to cooperate with everyone, but are you are not doing the same. Tell me, what is it that you want? I thought my last edit covers all of your demands.
Hi, five editors on the talk page of the article Bulgarians fully disagreed with your claim that Bulgarians are not a South Slavic people and described your DNA-arguments as highly controversial and unreliable. Your edits on the article itself were reverted several times by me and also by a 6-th editor - Laveol, who also warned you to stop the attempts. You did not convinced anyone to change the lead. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, several other people expressed their opinions and disagreements, then i addressed their arguments, and explained that their arguments are not valid, i provided well argued explanation and reasoning. They did not respond back, which i take as agreement. We all must reach a consensus, since they had nothing else to say to my arguments, i take that as an agreement.
I also never said that Bulgarians are not South Slavic people, i said Bulgarians are not ONLY South Slavic people, and for that reason, it would be misleading and wrong to describe them as such. South Slavic people make up only one ancestral group of the admixture, there is no valid reason to exclude all the others, and only describe Bulgarians as one of the multiple ancestral groups. Almost all other nations have described their ethnic group in a similar fashion, for that reason, i restructured the explanation to make it more accurate, it says that Bulgarians are South Slavic group, but also Thracianss, and Proto-Bulgarians among others. This is an accurate statement, and nobody but yourself have expressed any disagreement. The argument that Bulgarians being also Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians is not controversial, it is common sense, and everybody in Bulgaria studies it. Furthermore, being controversial is not a valid argument or a criteria, Wikipedia is not a forum, it is encyclopedia for facts, i have stated the facts. Do you have any other arguments? You are the only one who keep reversing my edits, nobody else has a problem with them. Tell me what is the reason to reverse my edit?
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will have you blocked unless you stop. I have been asking for your cooperation and asking you to discuss with me your disagreement with my edits, you refuse to talk with me, discuss with me what you disagree with, you ignore me, when i change the edits, you reverse them again. If you have disagreements with my edits, state them here, and let's discuss until we reach consensus. If you have nothing to say, then stop reversing my changes or else i will have you blocked. One more time and i will report you. You clearly refuse to cooperate or even talk with me.
Dear User:TishoYanchev, please read the Wikipedian qualification of vandalism - especially Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Please refrain from using warning templates regarding edits that are clearly listed as not vandalism. This is regarding this edit. Thank you in advance.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgarian ethnogenesis description". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 December 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgarian ethnogenesis description, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hello, TishoYanchev. How are you? I am sorry to interrupt, but I hope some of my thoughts will find you well. I understand it's incredibly stressful to have content disputes; when you believe you are right, but unable to convince other people (not being able to discuss issues in person makes it more stressful I think). I am asking you to compose yourself; the tone of voice you are posting with right now is not healthy; please take a short break from Wikipedia and calm down, and then disinterested readers can assess the issues in Bulgarians. If you continue with the angry tone, the conversation will likely be focused on you and yourself only, instead of your content concerns. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you! Please listen to me.. This is not what it looks like! Give me a chance to explain myself! This is not what you think it is! User:jingiby refuses to discuss with me anything, he never discussed anything with me. Only user:Steve has discussed with me, and he agrees with what i am saying. My proposed change is not what they said it is! I am not proposing anything controversial, User:Jingiby says that because he wants to silence me, he has political motives. I am proposing we add above information already stated and sourced below. Is this controversial? What is controversial? if the information is controversial, then why is it included already? The information is already sourced, this is not my source! I also want to remove the word Slavic, because it contradicts the below information, and it gives misleading impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else. Jingiby and others have not said a single word about this! They have not said a single argument about my proposed change!! What can i do? They refuse to discuss, but why? Please ask them why! What exactly are they against, and why? --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in this fight for over a week now, and i am losing my sanity! I have never seen so much deception and corruption in my life before! This is not what it looks like! My hands are clean, and i will pursue justice to the fullest! JIngiy is lying and he is politicaly motivated. I am ready to share my emails, messages everything to prove my innonence! Rules say we must discuss, but he never discuss anything. He did the same for the Bulgarian language page, now he is coming for the English page! I will not allow this deception to continue. --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to discuss my content only! I am trying to explain to you people what i am proposing! I am trying to explain that what is said about me and my proposed changes is not true! Yet, nobvody is listening to what i am saying, they just attack me, and accuse me of being aggressive! Why is nobody listening to what i am saying? --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no choice but to block this account indefinitely. You cannot ask other editors to "listen" to you if you are cannot listen to what they are trying to tell you (including what I have just told you minutes ago), on multiple occasions in the past two weeks. If you cannot contribute to English Wikipedia constructively and work collegially with other editors here, please consider alternative outlets. To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But i am listening!! Tell me what am i not listening?? What are they telling me?? Please explain to me! I have been addressing what they are saying, and i have been begging for them to reply to me, they never do!! Who am i not listening?? Please explain to me!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Why was i banned? Why is nobody listening to me... I am losing my mind. Please tell me, what do i have to do? I am trying to explain myself and nobody is listening to me! I am wrongly accused, and what they said about my proposed change is wrong! I keep listening to others, and i address their arguments, but they don't address mine! Please tell me, what do i have to do?? I will show you everything you want to prove my innocence! Will somebody give a chance to explain myself?? This is ridiculous!! I cannot take this deception anymore! Will somebody listen to me?? I Keep trying to explain that what they said about my proposed change is WRONG, this is NOT what i am proposing!! They have NOT discussed with ME! NOT! They have NOT said any arguments! They keep reverting the changes without discussing and making false accusations!! Why am I the one getting banned?? --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not investigated the content dispute (and do not intend to), but I have read through some of the discussion. And what I am seeing from you, TishoYanchev, is a torrent of personal attacks, accusations and threats. When you approach discussion in that way, I'm really not surprised that you can't get people to listen to you. And if you continue with the personal attacks here, you are likely to lose talk page access too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am begging you to explain to me who am i attacking and threatening? User Dave and Jingiby made false accusations about me and what i am proposing, i have tried to explain myself that this is not true. Tell me what am i supposed to do? Who am i attacking?? Please tell me who? Every time i explain myself, someone tells me that i am attacking others, and that i am violent, but nobody is addressing what i am actually saying. Here i am again begging for someone to explain to me who exactly am i attacking? I have been wrongly accused, i have not attacked anybody, i don't care about neither Jingiby nor anybody else, all i was begging for is for someone to listen to what i am actually saying as opposed to listen to what others are saying about me. That is all i am begging for, and nobody, not one person has addressed or listened to what i am saying. I am trying to explain that what they said is my proposed change is not true, and that for the past week i have been begging Jingiby and others to discuss their disagreements with me, but hey have not. And now they have proposed to block me, how is this fair? Is this fair? Is this justice? Is this what Wikipedia is about? I am 100% innocent, and i am ready to share my screen and to show my emails and messages and everyone, and to explain my case. I don't wish to attack nor threat anybody, i have begged them to discuss with me, they refuse, and now admins refuse to listen to what i was saying. --TishoYanchev (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"JIngiy is lying and he is politicaly motivated", "YOU ARE THE MOST LYING AND DECEPTIVE PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN", "YOU WERE reported to the Police, because you are not Bulgarian nor from Bulgaria! ", "i will not give up until we stop your corruption scheme!!!", "Jingiby and his non-Bulgarians friends have completely destroyed the Bulgarian page in Bulgarian and are now doing the same for English page!", "they are viciously attacking anyone who supports my proposed change", "User:jingiby and his friends lie and misrepresent my actions and my arguments and my proposed changes. I believe they are politically motivated." are a few examples (one from this very page, just above). If you can't see the accusations and personal attacks in any of that, then you definitely should not be editing here - and please be fully aware that you will lose your talk page access if you continue with that approach here. I strongly suggest you switch off from Wikipedia for a little while and do something that does not stress you so badly, and rethink your approach to civil interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first of all, because you are not Bulgarian nor from Bulgaria! is taken out of context, because if you read the full sentence of what i said, it is that Jingiby was reported to the police not merely because he is not Bulgarian, but because he actively sabotages the editing of the Bulgarian page on both languages, and he intentionally spreads false information, and he does attack anyone who opposes them. I said that in the moment of anger when he once again lied about what i am proposing. But everything i said is true, is it not? He is reported to the Bulgarian prosecutors office, here is the news: https://www.actualno.com/signal-sreshtu-uikipedija-v-bylgarskata-prokuratura-news_482493.html. I stand by everything i said about him, he is deceptive because he has been lying about me and my proposed changes, is this not true? He is politically motivated, if you look at his past edits it should be clear. And he did attack anyone who opposes him. The removed several comments that were supporting me, and then reverted them back only because i called him out on it.
I don't care about this guy, i don't care what his motives are, i don't care why he hates Bulgaria so much, i don't want to discuss him or his friends. For the past week, he has been reverting my changes without discussing them, i begged him to discuss with me, and he refuses, then he made those lying and false accusations about me to the other editors and admins, and now i am banned. Can you at least try to understand my position? Can you tell me what was i supposed to do, when nobody is listening to me, and they are all listening to what Jingiby says about me? He is very savvy on Wikipedia, i am not. He knows how to talk and how to use the rules to his advantage, but i have the advantage of being innocent, and i have the advantage of having my hands clean, i know his hands are not clean, i can prove it, if anyone agrees to at least listen to my side of the story, you will understand that that user is not honest, and he is in fact politically motivated. Why can't you see this, since he made false claims about me, and keeps deleting the comments of everyone who supports me, refuses to discuss with me while at the same time keeps reverting the changes. Look at his page, i have begged him to cooperate with me and discuss with me. I said i am open for discussion and cooperation, but he refuses to do that. Why am i in wrong here? Please explain to me. --TishoYanchev (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stunned that your response is to double down on your accusations and personal attacks. As a result, your talk page access has now been revoked. See WP:UTRS if you wish to make an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YEARS LATER - just wondering what a police report looks like in Bulgaria making a complaint against an editor of the English Wikipedia, which is based in Florida. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.61.183 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Aleenf1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 2020 Summer Olympics without 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: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the 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! Aleenf1 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Chicago school of economics, 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. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TishoYanchev topic ban proposal. !dave 08:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)