User talk:Xselant

August 2022

Hello, I'm Pamzeis. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Vivien Lyra Blair, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Pamzeis (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Draft talk:The Acolyte (TV series). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have been told not to edit war and have blatantly continued to do so, you may not like the WP:LDR format but it has been chosen for this draft by local consensus and you don't get to just arbitrarily decide to change it. Please revert your changes. If you do not we will have to take this further. adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Draft:The Acolyte (TV series) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Socket AM5 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Socket AM5 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Image sizes

Hi, please don't manually set image sizes (eg, "240px") in infoboxes, see MOS:IMGSIZE -- FMSky (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If you actually read MOS:IMGSIZE, you would know that it does not entirely forbid an image size being set to 240px. There are specific reasons why they have been set to that size as many are low resolution or square images that can't be seen well without that size. Those images when set at 200px make the infobox look ugly with massive white amounts of white space. Please stop trying to engage in an edit war. There should not be no universal case that can be applied to all images. Xselant (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible." --FMSky (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I used to alter image sizes to a fixed size, but then someone pointed out that what looks right on my screen might not look right on someone else's (different screen sizes, resolutions, etc.). EddieHugh (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss

You need to get a consensus for including the paragraph that you've added three times to Liz Truss. Was your inclusion of it in your edit with the edit summary "Fixing references" accidental? I hope so, because that's not an appropriate edit summary if it was deliberate. Either way, please remove it. WP:ONUS (an official policy): "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's done via the article's talk page, once inclusion has been challenged. Thanks, EddieHugh (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Star Wars The Acolyte series logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Star Wars The Acolyte series logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Xselant reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• I imagine this will be your last timed block for edit warring. You need to find another way to deal with content disputes rather than reverting as further instances will likely lead to an indefinite block of your account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have been maliciously accused of edit-warring by two editors in retaliation who are simply projecting. Praxidicae and Denniss have been undoing any edits without reason even if they information added has been well-sourced. The edit history shows this but facts don't seem to matter to these two users. On Denniss' talk page here, I said I would be happy to discuss what specific problems they had with the edits but they refused to use the talk page and instead did their own edit-warring while gaslighting me. If I deserved to be bocked for thius, then they do too because they were refusing to explain why. I have an extremely low opinion of people who crybully Xselant (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been maliciously accused of edit-warring by two editors in retaliation who are simply projecting. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] and [[User:Denniss|Denniss]] have been undoing any edits without reason even if they information added has been well-sourced. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socket_AM5&action=history edit history] shows this but facts don't seem to matter to these two users. On Denniss' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denniss#Edit-warring here], I said I would be happy to discuss what specific problems they had with the edits but they refused to use the talk page and instead did their own edit-warring while gaslighting me. If I deserved to be bocked for thius, then they do too because they were refusing to explain why. I have an extremely low opinion of people who crybully [[User:Xselant|Xselant]] ([[User talk:Xselant#top|talk]]) 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been maliciously accused of edit-warring by two editors in retaliation who are simply projecting. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] and [[User:Denniss|Denniss]] have been undoing any edits without reason even if they information added has been well-sourced. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socket_AM5&action=history edit history] shows this but facts don't seem to matter to these two users. On Denniss' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denniss#Edit-warring here], I said I would be happy to discuss what specific problems they had with the edits but they refused to use the talk page and instead did their own edit-warring while gaslighting me. If I deserved to be bocked for thius, then they do too because they were refusing to explain why. I have an extremely low opinion of people who crybully [[User:Xselant|Xselant]] ([[User talk:Xselant#top|talk]]) 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been maliciously accused of edit-warring by two editors in retaliation who are simply projecting. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] and [[User:Denniss|Denniss]] have been undoing any edits without reason even if they information added has been well-sourced. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socket_AM5&action=history edit history] shows this but facts don't seem to matter to these two users. On Denniss' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denniss#Edit-warring here], I said I would be happy to discuss what specific problems they had with the edits but they refused to use the talk page and instead did their own edit-warring while gaslighting me. If I deserved to be bocked for thius, then they do too because they were refusing to explain why. I have an extremely low opinion of people who crybully [[User:Xselant|Xselant]] ([[User talk:Xselant#top|talk]]) 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Xselant (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)