Welcome to Wikipedia, Dynamismcool! Here are some links to help you along:

• The Wikipedia Adventure
• Manual of Style
• Reliable sources
• Writing your first article
• Article wizard
• How to sign your talk page posts
• The pillars of Wikipedia
• Edit warring
• Vandalism
• Articles for Creation
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

If you need help, then feel free to ask for help on your talk page. Have a great Wiki-Day. Adakiko (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Flag of Slovenia. 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. Thank you. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. I just wanted to try and add an image. But it wouldn't let me for some reason. Dynamismcool (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Slovenia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 11:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Dynamismcool (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im so sorry. I just wanted to help. I never wanted to make the platform feel like I did add bad materials, because I did not.😕 Dynamismcool (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Flags of New Caledonia, you may be blocked from editing. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to help. Dynamismcool (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to do it anymore. Dynamismcool (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Flag of Cyprus. This one really was outright vandalism Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the French Guiana article to state that the French name for it is "Guyane Française". It isn't, it's just "Guyane". Largoplazo (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed that the French Wikipedia article acknowledges "Hors de France, la région est habituellement appelée Guyane française", but we should be providing its own name for itself. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Google translated it, and it told me it was Guyane Française. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it WAS Guyane, it would just be Guiana. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translator isn't a reliable source, and the names for places in different languages aren't always literal word-for-word translations of each other. What counts is what the department is actually called in the department, and that's "Guyane". Look at actual French reliable sources that refer to it to see what they call it. Here's a starter list, consisting of pages on French government sites: [1]. Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you win.... But I did research and Guyane is the most common and official name. But Guyane Française is the long name. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I change it to Guyane Française because it's easier to tell from Guyana. Dynamismcool (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to go argue with France over what they call it, but we're telling readers what they do call it, not what one Wikipedia editor thinks they should call it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to argue, because I am not. All I'm saying is both names are accurate, but your right. I'm sorry. Dynamismcool (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm starting to realize, some of my edits are bad and completley wrong. So I'm sorry. Dynamismcool (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to make Wikipedia better, but it just looks like I'm making it worse. Dynamismcool (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make edits that actually help the community. Dynamismcool (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, just now, I reverted another edit of yours. Where the France article shows, correctly, that the French version of "French Republic" is "République française", you changed it, incorrectly, to "République Française". French doesn't follow the same rules for capitalization as English does. I appreciate your desire to help. But to do that, you had best stick to edits that you know are correct, in areas that you're familiar with. If you don't know French, for example, you shouldn't be trying to correct things that are in French. If you think something needs a correction, make sure first: find reliable sources (Google Translate, as I said, isn't a reliable source) where you can find the word or phrase you're looking at and see how it's used there. If you're fixing a fact because you think it's wrong, check the cited source if there is one, or find a reliable source that shows that you're correct. Otherwise, leave it be. Largoplazo (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks😊 Dynamismcool (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at French Southern and Antarctic Lands, you may have noticed I changed the flag. If you change it back to normal I understand. Like I said, I just wanted to help. Dynamismcool (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to ask, if French Southern and Antarctic Lands abbreviation in French is TAAF, then isn't the abbreviation in English FSAL? Correct me if I'm wrong. Dynamismcool (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is an abbreviation for it, but the important question is, is it an abbreviation that's commonly used? It's also possible that English sources that refer to the place use the French abbreviation. Or maybe it's used so rarely that English sources don't bother to abbreviate it at all. It would be wrong for an editor to present it in the article as information based on the editor's own supposition. I don't know what the correct answer is, and I also am not terribly interested in taking the time to look into it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't present it in the article; infact I'm waiting for some answers. I understand that you are not interested, and that's OK. I'll dig in to it by myself. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fine if I ask; how was your day so far?😊 Dynamismcool (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having so many warnings, I'm going to have to ask if I can do edits before I do them. Don't you think? Dynamismcool (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might be helpful. Ask at the talk page of the article you have in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fine if I change the French Southern and Antarctic Lands page flag with this? 👇🏾File:Flag of the Senior Administrator of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands.svg Dynamismcool (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such questions are to be asked on the talk page of the relevant article. You aren't specifically looking for my permission. There may be a reason known to participants in and watchers of that article as to why the image is what it is and not another one. There's often a history. If there is, you can typically find it somewhere on the talk page or in its archives. When you ask there, indicate why you want to change it, why you think it's an improvement. Also, why do you keep sticking "File:" in front of the names of image files in places where it isn't necessary? Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you start a new discussion, you need to insert a section heading over it instead of treating it like a continuation of an existing discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. When I copy a file on Wikimedia, its just there for some reason. Dynamismcool (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fine if I can do it or not? Dynamismcool (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Outline of Slovenia. 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. Adakiko (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a bad editor, am I? Dynamismcool (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been talked to so many people, and they say my edits are wrong. They are probably right. Dynamismcool (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone undoes your edit, it is best to start a conversation with that person rather than just undo their edit. If you reply on your talk page, use help:notifications. Preface your reply with {{reply|Adakiko}} BTW: Adding it to your reply after you save it may not work. It needs to have your signature ~~~~ saved with the notification "reply". Thank you Adakiko (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having received this warning several hours ago, you just did the same thing at Serbia, changing the flag image for a third time despite having had your change undone twice. You're making it harder and harder to believe you're trying to do better, and at this point I'm considering whether to report you to WP:AIV, WP:EWNB, or WP:ANI. One thing you could do to show good faith is to go back to Serbia and undo your own latest edit if someone hasn't already done that by the time you get to it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dynamismcool (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't report me. Dynamismcool (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion is a wp:DAB page. Use Réunion. You can display DAB links in orange by checking Preferences -> Gadgets / Display links to disambiguation pages in orange. The name in French is not title case. See fr:Terres australes et antarctiques françaises. Please check your edits. Try using wp:Show preview. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dynamismcool (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been changing flags to versions clearly listed as "superceded", and changing svg versions to png. Neither of those is the right thing to do. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something; I never wanted to make disprutive edits, infact, I wanted to fill Wikipedia with accurate knowledge, not vandalize it. It may've seen like dispruptive to you, but in reality, I wanted to fill it with my knowledge. But, I guess it was never enough... Dynamismcool (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, replacing a country flag to a .png format like you did is not "fill Wikipedia with knowledge", all of your edits except one have been only to replace a version of one flag or coat of arms to another of your liking (I'm presuming that since you haven't bothered to write anything of value in your edit summaries to give a rationale for your edits). Country flags here at wikipedia are choosen so they are to follow official guidelines, and for the vast majority of cases they actually are, you should've paid attention to that before modifying them (I'm refering to those edits where you have replaced a rendering of a flag with another that has different colors like you did in Portugal, United Arab Emirates; not the ones where you somehow thought that a .png format of a flag would be an improvement over a .svg format). If you are ever to be allowed to edit here at Wikipedia again, I would counsel you to actually pay attention when other users put warnings in your talk page. All the best to you. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I did make disruptive edits, but I didn't intend to vandalize Wikipedia. The moment I got an account(which was 9 days ago), I was just learning how to edit. Then I did that with the flags because I thought they were wrong. Then came the warnings; "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia". But I didn't want to vandalize it. My opinions may've been incorrect, but I still did it over and over, because I thought you were wrong. Dynamismcool (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was after you said to me that you would start trying to get input from others before making changes. But you didn't do that, except once. And you ignored the warning you received above that included the advice Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right. Even the temporary block didn't seem to have made an impression on you. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? It's clear now what I need to do. I should just accept Wikipedia how it is. If I get unbanned(which is probably never), I'm actually not going to edit again, unless its a helpful or educational article. And I'll try not to edit war anymore. Dynamismcool (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what I think is wrong, I should accept Wikipedia. Dynamismcool (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit on Wikipedia, but it wasn't me. I saw the flag of Eygpt was wrong. The Eagle of Salidin was the wrong color, the last time it was edited was 3 days ago. U know anything about that? Dynamismcool (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drimes, if you are reading this, it means I have changed. I tried to tell you on your talk, but it wouldn't let me. I wasn't trying to edit or anything. I just wanted to apologize. I know that actions have consequences, and it was clear I didn't pay attention to that. I hope you can forgive me.

Kind Regards, Dynamismcool. Dynamismcool (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dynamismcool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Dynamismcool (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)I'm sorry that I didn't listen to the warnings; I was very ignorant, even when you said to stop. I wanted to do what I wanted to do instead of actually listening. I will not make anymore disruptive edits if you unblock me. Give me one more chance. I'll make it all up to you if you do.[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than "sorry, I won't do it again", which is what your appeal effectively boils down to. You've been here only ten days, and just look at the litany of warnings on this page that you've managed to accumulate in such short time. Not only that, but you've already been blocked once, and when that block expired, you just carried on in the same manner. How can we be sure you won't do it again, just because you say you won't? If you wish to appeal again, I suggest you put some proper effort into demonstrating that you genuinely have seen the proverbial light, incl. explaining clearly why what you did was wrong, and how your behaviour will be different going forward. (You should read WP:GAB before appealing.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dynamismcool (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dynamismcool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Dynamismcool (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)"Sorry" isn't enough. I know that words don't really do anything, and complying the EXACT same behavior after I was unblocked wasn't the right thing to do. Not only that, straight up vandalism, changing flags even when you told me to stop, and even giving the wrong names. I talked to Largoplazo that I would ask before I edited, but I didn't do that. I wasn't able to give my first block as an opportunity to stop my disruptive edits. I understand for what I am blocked for: disruptive edits. I also got a pile of warnings on my talk page, and never listened to any of them. I am ashamed for this disruptive behavior. What I did was wrong, and I shoud've reliazed that sooner. I will be different moving further on, because I actually feel like this block actually made me accept Wikipedia more, instead of arguing with people about it. I could also help some other disruptive or new editors understand what they did was wrong. Because I don't want what happened to me, happen to them. My edits didn't seem disruptive to me, but the more I got warnings, the more I realized; they are.[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; superceded by the following unblock request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dynamismcool (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Dynamismcool, it's good that you understand that you were disruptive, now you need to demonstrate that you know how to avoid those situations in future.

Take a look through the warnings above and read every blue link. Then try to explain why your actions caused disruption and what you'd do differently if you were faced with that situation again. Make sure to look at each warning in turn, so you don't miss anything important.

Doing this will help a lot with your appeal - blocks aren't punishment, they're made to protect Wikipedia so you need to prove to admins that you know how to avoid causing more problems if you're unblocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this situation WON'T happen again; not after I been blocked. And I did all you just said. What else can I do?🤔 Dynamismcool (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion - I meant take a specific situation from your editing history and explain the steps you would take in future, like:

1. Doing "X" caused problems because it has "Y" effect.
2. If it happened again, I would do "Z" instead.

Here's a non-Wikipedia example that might explain it better:

1. I put a cup of water on top of my PS5 and knocked it over, this caused my house to catch on fire.
2. I now realise that was dangerous because water conducts electricity, so I will make sure to place my drink on a table or other stable surface.

This will help show admins that you fully understand the situation and how to avoid it in future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your basically saying I need to make another reason to be unblocked? Dynamismcool (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just add it as a reply since the admins will see it - you can delete the duplicate request below. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dynamismcool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here "Sorry" isn't enough. I know that words don't really do anything, and complying the EXACT same behavior after I was unblocked wasn't the right thing to do. Not only that, straight up vandalism, changing flags even when you told me to stop, and even giving the wrong names. I talked to Largoplazo that I would ask before I edited, but I didn't do that. I wasn't able to give my first block as an opportunity to stop my disruptive edits. I understand for what I am blocked for: disruptive edits. I also got a pile of warnings on my talk page, and never listened to any of them. I am ashamed for this disruptive behavior. What I did was wrong, and I shoud've reliazed that sooner. I will be different moving further on, because I actually feel like this block actually made me accept Wikipedia more, instead of arguing with people about it. I could also help some other disruptive or new editors understand what they did was wrong. Because I don't want what happened to me, happen to them. My edits didn't seem disruptive to me, but the more I got warnings, the more I realized; they are.

1. I didn't listen to the warnings.

2. I got blocked for only 24 hours(a day).

3. Now I am blocked infedenly.

4. Now I know that actions have consequences.

I now realize that was wrong because no matter how much you told me, I never stopped. I will try to not to do anymore vandalizing things, and accept Wikipedia in the future.

Accept reason:

Alright, last chance it is. Happy editing, and good luck. asilvering (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how much this means❤️ Dynamismcool (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamismcool (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I appreciate the apology, as well as the explanation of what you did wrong. Can you explain what you would do differently if unblocked? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I would just accept Wikipedia how it is and actually make edits that are actually helpful, because I want to make things right, and I also realized that when I check some of the country pages, the coat of arms are wrong. So when I go to the MAIN coat of arms page, it shows a different image. Is it supposed to be like that? Dynamismcool (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I wonder if it might be best to avoid uploading images or files until you have more experience? I'm only suggesting this as it was one of the reasons you were blocked.

You can perhaps begin with simpler edits (typos, formatting etc.) & take notice of how the images and files appear on the articles you work on. When you're ready, you could revisit that area in future.

Revisiting the edit warring situation further up this page, what would you do differently if you were faced with the same situation?

You might want to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help you answer this question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw some coat of arms that weren't the same, I was just looking through some Wikipedia articles. That's when I saw them. Dynamismcool (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took all my time and effort in that apology, I want to make people see I changed. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamismcool, I'm glad that you've apologized, but I'm not sure you won't just do basically the same thing again when you get the idea that you're right and something needs to be changed. Can you tell us what you would do in the future if one of your edits were to be reverted, or if someone leaves a warning on your talk page? -- asilvering (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone reverted my edit, I would explain to them why I did it. If they agree, then we would just accept it. If they don't, I will just accept Wikipedia how it is. Does that answer your question Dynamismcool (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that I am asking to be unblocked. I haven't really been on Wikipedia for a while, and here's what I would do differently if unblocked.

1. I would accept Wikipedia how it is.

2. I would try to make useful edits, not vandalism ones.

3. I would help other editors too if they made a mistake.Dynamismcool (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi again, if you've got an appeal open you don't need to submit another one since that won't really do anything.

Unfortunately there's a backlog of appeals right now - admins are volunteers doing this in their own time, so it might take a while but this is definitely visible in the queue.

I've also converted these to normal posts, so they're easier for everyone to track. I'd also suggest you read WP:BRD, it'll help you understand what to do if you're reverted in future. WP:DRN is for when that doesn't work & you need outside input.

BTW @Asilvering I think one of these was intended for you, but it was in a subject header so you might not have seen it? Figured I'd ping you just in case... Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would WP:ROPE reasonably apply here? Largoplazo (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo, they've already had quite a lot of rope extended to them, but I think we can get one last round in before last call at the last chance saloon. @Drmies, what do you figure? -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, reblocking is easy. Not seeing a lot of competence here though. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamismcool I want you to look through your previous edits if you're unblocked - almost all of them have had to be undone by another editor. That means someone else had to use their own personal spare time to fix your errors and that's not really fair on them.

Look at the history to see why each edit was undone and what the other person had to do to fix it. Make sure you remember what they did so that it doesn't happen again.

Learn from every mistake & don't repeat them.

Do your best to be an asset to Wikipedia and make it better for your being here. That's all we need from you, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already learned my lesson. And the first time I was blocked, should've been the first time I shoud've reliazed. Infact, when I first got a warning, I should've reliazed. When Largoplazo told me to stop editing French Guiana, I shoud've reliazed. Infact, for almost all of my edits, I should have realized. I am terribly ashamed for these actions and all I want to do is to be unblocked so I can make useful edits or not even edit at all. Dynamismcool (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Blue-Sonnet, I indeed did not get it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.😊 Dynamismcool (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Netherlands page by replacing the coat of arms. I only did it because I saw a different coat of arms on the main country page from the main coat of arms page. I did this with the Netherlands portal too. I copied the main coats of arms incase you want me to put them back. Dynamismcool (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that I am edit warring. On the portal page, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. Dynamismcool (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to bring things like this up on the article Talk page for whatever you've edited so everyone can see it - not many people will be looking here unless they're about to send you a message or give you a warning.

If you're not sure whether an edit is a good idea, don't do it and ask for advice on the article Talk page or the Teahouse - you should be cautious with your edits since you've just come out of a block. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on one to see if I could do it or not but no one replied. Dynamismcool (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect people to rush to answer your questions when you post them, and understand that even if an edit is worthwhile, the sorts of edits you're making don't have to be made right now. If you leave an inquiry, give people time to respond.

Anyway, it's fine to make an edit as you did for the reason you gave. The problem is if someone reverts it and then you put it back the way you like it without getting an agreement to do so. Largoplazo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great!🙂 I want to learn more how to edit properly. I need to do further research on that. Dynamismcool (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to make edits and someone redid them, it drove me mad. Now it's different. Instead of arguing with people about it, I will try to talk to them, ask why they redid my edit, and if they don't agree with me, I won't care. Because what if my edit had the wrong information? Then it would make sense someone undid it. Dynamismcool (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Absolutiva removed the coat of arms from France with the edit summary "The coat of arms or emblem remains disputed". The comment embedded in the text reads The coat of arms or emblem remains disputed; see Talk:France#Coat of arms. This tells you that the matter is already under discussion. Therefore, the appropriate thing for you to have done would have been to turn to that discussion, read it, understand it, and, if you felt you have anything to say that would help the group move to a consensus, participate in it. Otherwise, the appropriate thing would have been to have just let it play out. The inappropriate thing to do is to storm in and change it back to the way you want it without bothering to inform yourself about developments up to that point.

In addition, I see you then asked Absolutiva, on their own talk page, why they removed it, even though Absolutiva had already explained it clearly. And, nevertheless, you didn't wait to get an answer, you just decided, as I already noted, to change it back to the way you want it.

For these reasons, I've restored Absolutiva's version.

Don't misunderstand me: If the coat of arms (or emblem) weren't already under discussion and an editor removed it with no explanation whatsoever, it would have been reasonable to restore it, leaving an edit summary along the lines of "Reverting unexplained removal of content". But that isn't what the situation was.

You know that you're on your last chance here. During your indefinite block, I wrote in favor of giving you one after you swore up and down that you would change your approach to collaborating with other editors here. But you're still following your old practices. Unfortunately, if I see one more action like this, where you plow ahead without regard to what anyone else is saying, I will submit a request to have you blocked again. Largoplazo (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to comply this behavior anymore. Dynamismcool (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is my last chance and if I screw this chance up, I could be blocked from editing forever. I want ot learn how to edit properly. I should apologize to all the editors I wronged like you. Do you have tips so I can edit properly? Dynamismcool (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the one user had already explained their edit at the time they made it, the fact that you reverted their edit as though they hadn't explained it and also, at the same time, asked them why they made it when they already said why, tells me that you weren't following any of the guidance I'd given you so far. I've given you all the tips I can as clearly as I can. All I can do is summarize one more time:

• Slow down.
• Stop assuming you know everything while everyone else knows nothing.
• Understand that your having a reason for something doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a better reason, one that you might not even have been aware of. It may be a matter of fact or a matter of Wikipedia practice. You've already acknowledged that you have a lot to learn, but then you continue to act like you don't remember that.
• If you see something done inconsistently in two places, don't guess which is the incorrect one, or consider that both might be correct. If in doubt, ask.
• If you make an edit and someone challenges/reverts it, discuss it, and wait for the discussion to play out before continuing. As I said before, slow down.

However, some positive feedback: Your inquiry at Talk:Egypt was a proper way to approach that matter (though, since the article is extended confirmed protected, which means you can't edit it yet, I don't have any way to know whether you would have replaced the flag anyway without getting a response if you could have). Your inquiry at Talk:Norway ended up just fine.

Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't replaced the flag. They already told me not too and I didn't want to get blocked again. I'm actually going to take a break from editing. I don't want to caus any more trauma on Wikipedia. I been blocked two times. I don't want there to be a third. Is taking a break from editing the right thing to do? Dynamismcool (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to GumballNine1Nine about why they changed the Luxembourg page. I did not change their edit. I also got curious about when I changed the Netherlands page because I found 3 links on Commons.

• Wapen van Nederland klein.svg

• Rijkswapen der Nederlanden.svg

• Koninklijk wapen van het koninkrijk der Nederlanden.svg

I wanted to see what they looked like before I officialy published them. I tested them out on the Netherlands and coat of arms pages. I didn't publish them though. Dynamismcool (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the Netherlands coat of arms page, someone changed one of the coat of arms when one of them was already there. So I changed it back. Is that technically plowing?Dynamismcool (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know, based on actual evidence, that their edit was incorrect or were you guessing again? Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically guessing again because there was already a same coat of arms on the page. Did you check the edit history? Dynamismcool (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I'm not the one wanting to make a change. As I've pointed out before, if you see something in one place, how do you know it's the correct one? If you see inconsistent things in two places and you know that one is correct and one isn't and you also know (from reliable external sources) which is the correct one and which is the incorrect one, then fix it. If you don't know, it's great to point out the inconsistency on the talk page of one of the articles (and to put a quick note on the talk page of the other article announcing that you've begun that discussion and providing a link to it, so watchers of that article will also be aware of it). But before you do that, yes, check to see whether it's already being discussed by others. If it is, and they seem to know more than you do about what's correct, or at least are citing external sources justifying their opinions, then you can figure it's already being handled and you can leave it to them and move on to something else. Largoplazo (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what might be a good idea (other than a mentor), instead of taking a break fully, just take a break from complex editing.

There's something called gnoming - it's something that's really important to the running of Wikipedia, but isn't done so much because it's sometimes seen as less glamorous. There are loads of small but important things that need fixing, such as typos, non-neutral phrasing, broken links etc.

You could work on those instead for a while - get used to the important fundamentals of editing, whilst you look at how other articles are made up.

You'll be able to see all the different ways that images, coding and sourcing is done across loads of different subjects and topics. One minute you're working on a gardening article, next thing you're in astrophysics!

Does that sound like a good idea?

If it does, I recommend that you start with the Wikipedia:Typo Team & go from there. You can also attach around to find some other projects which focus on different tasks, if you prefer.

Taking a break is good if you feel you need it, sometimes then a change can be as good as a rest (especially if you want to learn more about Wikipedia Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I was looking on the flag of Georgia (the country) page, the red in Georgia is more brown. So if I changed the flag of Georgia to that on the main country page, is that gnoming? Dynamismcool (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just more of the same sort of activity you're already doing that you've been having trouble with and that Blue Sonnet is suggesting you steer away from. And here you're failing to take into consideration one more time what I've been explaining to you: You see something that appears differently on two different pages. If one is right and one is wrong, how do you know which is the correct one? If you don't know, don't just pick one and decide that it's the one that's correct. I gave you detailed guidance on how to handle such situations just above, just hours ago. Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully text-only edits will be simpler and help them get some more experience. I definitely think images are a bit of a trouble area and best avoided for now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm going to join the Typo Team! Dynamismcool (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Remember, simple is best until you get more confidence - avoid images/attachments for now and if you're not sure what to do, just stop and leave it for someone more experienced.

You can also ask for advice in the Teahouse, but ask before you make the edit, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok👍 Dynamismcool (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You obviously care a lot about Wikipedia, so do your best to stay here as long as you can.

Slow and steady wins the race. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠)

Dynamismcool (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally did this on the United Kingdom ralk page but I found these links.

• Wapen van Nederland klein.svg

• Rijkswapen der Nederlanden.svg

• Koninklijk wapen van het koninkrijk der Nederlanden.svg

Should I replace them on the coat of arms page of the Netherlands? Dynamismcool (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People involved in that article have no idea that you're asking about these images on your own talk page. When you have a question about an article, the place to ask is on the talk page for that article. That way, people who have the article (and its talk page) on their watchlist will see it. Largoplazo (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did do that. So now, I'm just waiting for a response. Countryballs and Stickmen (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, its been 2 days, sjnce I made that request. Dynamismcool (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Not everybody looks at Wikipedia every day. You could just add them to the page and see what happens—and then back off if someone reverts your edits.

On the other hand, it seems to me you ought to have learned by now to be really wary of this because others have told you that there are reasons why some images are used and others aren't, that many of those images are the work of Wikipedia editors who've made up their own design details, their own "standards" for what these things "should" look like on Wikipedia that contradict official descriptions. When you add something—anything—to an article, you have to know, reliably, that it's correct. You can't just find stuff somebody else has added to Commons and add it to an article because it appeals to you or you think it fills a gap. And you can't just create your own graphic without adhering to an official definition. Largoplazo (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamismcool Apologies if you've already done this, but have you thought about getting a mentor? There's more information and links at Wikipedia:Mentorship Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea 👍 Dynamismcool (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dynamismcool! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ask a question using, "why".Dynamiscool (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May the bells of Christmas ring for freedom!^[1]

Carol of the Bells (Instrumental)

Instrumental arrangement of "Carol of the Bells"

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

May peace be upon us.

And have a happy and prosperous New Year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dynamiscool (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed the flag at Flag of Georgia (country) five times. Three of those changes directly followed another of your own changes. One of those was a redo after another editor had disagreed with it and undone it. You've explained none of them. At this point, you're edit warring not only with another editor but with yourself.

As I'd explained to you previously, you shouldn't be making any edits unless you know that they're correct and that they're an improvement. I've also explained that, in order to avoid being blocked again, you need to stop redoing your changes after another editor has disagreed without resolving the dispute. You don't appear to be following my advice on either of those counts but to be following only your own whim from day to day and hour to hour. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When someone redid or redoes my edit, it makes me wonder which is right and which is wrong. After you told me about reliable sources, it got me confused because when I make edits that I think are reliable, I just stick with it. However, if someone undid it, it throws me off track. I'm aware that I have been edit warring with myself. Infact, I always find myself doing it. Dynamiscool (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamismcool Remember when I suggested you get a mentor, or made this suggestion? Or this one, or the huge amount of patient guidance you've had from @Largoplazo? They've had to stop their editing to help you out so many times, but that's not really fair on them because they're a volunteer doing this in their own time too.

I don't think we're at the point where you should be working on images yet - you agreed to work on smaller text edits but went straight back to flags again.

We're giving you advice because we want to see you stay at Wikipedia, but we can't force you to follow that advice.

I don't normally do this, but I'd like you to read through this editor's Talk page - from this post downwards. [2]

This is another editor who obviously cared deeply about Wikipedia but couldn't help wanting to go back to things they weren't ready for.

There are some very obvious differences between the two of you, but I really don't want to see another editor lost because you keep diving into the pool at the deep end.

If this continues, an admin will have to look at your editing history at a while and judge whether you're creating more work for others than you're doing yourself. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to all! And to all, a good year! Dynamiscool (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Dynamismcool. Largoplazo (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye this is for the best. Dynamiscool (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. 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. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamismcool: You can use the preview button to see how an edit would look like, so you wouldn't have to go back and change it over and over again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to because before I confirm the edit, I check whether I should do it or not. Dynamiscool (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aware that I have been doing disruptive edits even when I said I would stop. After I got so much advice from many other editors, I have been blocked. To be honest, I deserve it. I do not even deserve having talk page access. Not after all the bad things I done. I have been giving warnings, and kept doing vandolus edits when you told me to stop. And now, I'm here. No matter how much you told me to stop, I didn't. I understand the consequences now because this has been my third strike. And I wasted all 3. First I was blocked for 24 hours, then I was blocked indefinitely, and now I am blocked again. I made a promise that I would stop doing unconstructive things, and I broke it. Maybe being blocked is for the best. First it was flags, then coat of arms, and even edit warring with myself. I was given suggested ideas, but ignored every single one. Dynamiscool (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking the WP:SO. Or longer - maybe a year or two. Wikipedia will still be here for you when you're ready, and the community is very forgiving, given enough time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and it basically says I need to wait for 6 months, or just make a unblock request now? Dynamiscool (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock request now will not be successful. You were given a last-chance unblock. There will not be any further chances for some time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sad it had to come to this, but there's not much else we could have done. Spend time away from English Wikipedia, maybe look at a sister project at List of Wikipedias (be much more careful if you choose to edit elsewhere & understand that now may not be the right time) then consider returning in a year or two.

It looks like your impulses overrode your common sense, so that's something you should focus on overcoming - it'll also help with your life in general, not just Wikipedia, since we all have a natural instinct to do things we probably shouldn't be doing.

Focus on yourself for a while, read Wikipedia but don't touch it - learn how to address the problems that led to your block, and recognise that it'll take time and hard work to accomplish. You can be very proud of yourself when you've been able to do that! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]