User talk:Emiya1980

Last warning on infobox image discussions

Consider this your last warning about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You continue to ignore[1] the comments of myself and others[2] who have cautioned you about this behavior. You mentioned that you would try to narrow it down to articles which are more closely related. After a few days you just went back to pinging projects again. You either don't understand what others are asking you to do or you don't care. It's natural for you to respond to this defensively, but I'd urge you to heed this last warning. I have been very patient with your disruptive editing in the infobox image RFCs, despite receiving insults[3], and baseless accusations[4]. You have received enough comment on your TALK and elsewhere to make a compelling case at ANI about creating a topic ban on your involvement on future infobox images discussions. I would rather avoid that since you are a good editor who just happens to be a little overzealous on this particular topic. I hope you take this note productively and take a moment to consider everyone who has urged you to change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: If you can articulate reasonable limits on what constitutes a nondisruptive way for going about notifying others of an Rfc, I'll hear you out. However, I would like to point out that nearly all the projects which I posted notices on are listed as having an interest in the Martin Van Buren page and should therefore be fair game. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

please shut the hell up 195.194.79.211 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov, did you write this on my talk page? If you didn’t, I’m giving you an easy out here. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nemov (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your recent editing history at World War II 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. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)