In your edit of 20:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC) of Hungarian Soviet Republic, you introduced the reference {{cite book |last=Pastor |first=Peter |title=Revolutionary Hungary, 1918–1921 |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=1988 |isbn=9780880331320 |language=English}}. Issues here: The ISBN number is invalid. I haven't been able to find a book with this exact author and title. Book references should always include a page number. Also, as a minor point, in citation templates, languages should be coded with usually 2-letter codes; the code for English is "en". Would you please come back to this article and fix this reference? Sincerely, —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Aeengath. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Serbian campaign, 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. Aeengath (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Serbian campaign. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tubenoon I’ve had to revert multiple edits you made to Serbian campaignand related articles. Your additions included extensive text supported by incorrect, unverifiable, or misattributed citations, in several cases using broad page ranges from unrelated works (Kramer, Lampe, Mitrović..etc) that do not contain the material claimed.

This kind of editing falls under WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR violations, as it introduces information not supported by reliable sources or combines sources to imply things they do not state (original synthesis). Repeated addition of fabricated or unverifiable content is considered disruptive editing and may lead to administrative action if continued.

Before restoring or adding any new material, please ensure that:

• Each statement is backed by a reliable, verifiable, page-specific source
• You provide exact page numbers or quotations where appropriate
• You avoid synthesis or interpretation beyond what sources explicitly say

If you have verifiable references that support your text, you’re welcome to discuss them on the article’s talk page before re-adding. Thanks -Aeengath (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Stubes99 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 14:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply