User talk:Emiya1980/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

{{Easy CSS image crop}}

Don't use this in articles yet (it's a work in progress), but I'm trying to make things a little easier. This requires some information {{CSS image crop}} doesn't - the original image's width and height (so that it knows how tall the scaled-down image it's cropping from is) - but I think it's easier to use. For the cost of slightly more complex math in the template, I could put the crops left right top and bottom in terms of percentages, but I'm not sure if that's easier. It WOULD make scaling a lot easier.

Anyway, if you want to give your thoughts, I'm trying to develop it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. If it's about Theodore Roosevelt, I'm happy about how things look now. Are you suggesting making further changes?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, just... you've played with the template used in Roosevelt, so you know it's maybe a bit hard to understand. I'd like to make it so that if we ever wanted to crop another image, anyone could adjust it easily, and understand what they were doing. I'm doing Taft next, you know (although I'm thinking of changing the base image there). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not the best person to speak with about template design on Wikipedia. I just made some tweaks which I thought would be conducive to obtaining the best outcome in the Theodore Roosevelt article. However, before you plan on making changes to William Howard Taft, I would recommend getting consensus of editors in advance.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Message already on the talk page. Though if I see nothing in a week... just doing it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

February 21, 2024

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have made unnecessary and borderline vandalizing edits to AT&T and IBM. Please don't use undocumented perimeters to show key people. Also, do not change founding dates without citing sources. WiinterU (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Upon further discovery, there were more articles. WiinterU (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@WiinterU: I have no problem providing citations for founding dates. With that being said, you are the only person who takes issue with my decision to modify the infobox to include key people in the company's history. What one deems unnecessary is subjective. If you can't point to an Wikipedia guideline corroborating your claims about "bordlerline vandalism", I redirect you to the page, Assume good faith.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Fisher Baker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railroad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murdoch family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page News Corp..

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Crocker family moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Crocker family. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crocker family has been accepted

Crocker family, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth von Moltke

I have just looked at your recent edits on this. Sorry if I am now telling you to do things that you know very well but it is customary to give a reason for your edits such as "further details added with a source" or " I think this reads better" or "Typo". I think the Wikipedia guidance is that the only time you need not do this is when you revert a piece of vandalism. The edits themselves mostly look OK and you have added some sources, which is great, however I'm not sure about the one that uses "ultimately". It looks a bit long but I am not going to alter it. Also can you tell me why you call the "general staff" the "great general staff." It may be a good edit or not-I don't know- it may depend on the reasons. Spinney Hill (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the word "ultimately" per your suggestion. The "Great General Staff" is the official term for the German General Staff. It says so in the Wikipedia article.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Founders

Hello,

Regarding the names of the founders of a company, Wikipedia must follow reliable sources, extrapolations such as [1][2] are considered original research and should be avoided.

Same goes for these other edits, I didn't check all of them but WP:TRUTH might be worth a read.

Kind regards. Thibaut (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Emiya1980. Thank you for your work on Oka Takazumi. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Emiya1980. Thank you for your work on Gould family. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rothschild banking family of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nathan Rothschild.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Leonid Brezhnev 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. Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Tesla

You were quick. I tried to edit the infobox as soon as I closed the RFC, and discovered that you had already edited the infobox in accordance with the close of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Antony Starr image

Can I ask what's wrong with the 2019 image of Starr? It's closer, higher quality, and more recent. Why do you keep reverting to an image thats over 12 years old when we have newer and better ones? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talk:Benito Mussolin

Your recent editing history at Talk:Benito Mussolini 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. Nemov (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You've been around a while so I won't template you, but I will warn you about edit warring and ownership over at Talk:Benito Mussolini. I count 5 reverts in just over 24 hours: [3][4][5][6][7] (four of those strictly within the 24 hour window). Some of that rhetoric is borderline uncivil as well. Please save us both some time and take a step back, because your next revert will land you at WP:3RRN. And yes, to answer your question, I do care about overall collegiality on contentious topics like this more than I do about the specific content dispute at hand. Generalrelative (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Your point is noted with regards to the reverts. That being said, explain to me why Nemov gets a pass for uncivil accusations about me wasting other editors' time with this Rfc and others.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalrelative Another example of Nemov's civility. [8]Emiya1980 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

GR is, to my knowledge, not an administrator. If you think users are in violation of WP policy, you should bring them to a noticeboard. And please don’t criticize fellow editors based on what they choose to give their time to. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitled to whatever priorities they want. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I concede your point if you are referring to my prior post on GR's talk page. However, if another editor openly accuses me in the middle of an Rfc of wasting others' time while trying to get concrete evidence of a consensus (or lack thereof) out in the open, I take offense to that and am inclined to respond in kind.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have in the past been warned for making personal attacks and other types of WP:TALKNO violations wrt image RfCs you've started. This latest comment is a highly inappropriate personalization of a policy-based discussion. I encourage you to self-revert. Continuing this pattern of misbehavior may result in loss of editing privileges, including I presume a ban on initiating image RfCs in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Characterize my statement however you want. It doesn't make it any less true. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Generalrelative Assuming you're referring to the current version of that comment as it now appears on Hermann Göring's talk page. If not, it has already been edited to more truthfully reflect your conduct on the Mussolini Rfc thread. That being said, I do find it rather hypocritical that you ONCE AGAIN call me out for personal attacks while giving Nemov a free pass to disparage me for supposedly wasting other editors' time. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one more time to stop doing mass pings like this on RfCs you've started. I'm not aware of any other editor who does this. If folks are already involved in an ongoing discussion, or if they !voted in a past RfC on the same matter, it's fine to ping them, but posts like the one I just linked give the appearance that you are grubbing for support when an RfC doesn't appear to be going your way. That is, it appears to be a form of WP:CANVASSING. You've been warned about excessive and disruptive pinging in the past. I strongly encourage you to stop doing this. Generalrelative (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you review Wikipedia's page regarding canvassing in more detail. Said page specifies that canvassing does not arise when notifying editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article in question. The editors whom I've notified are not only listed among the top 20 based on number of edits to the article but have contributed to the page within the past 3 years (thereby showing their continued interest in it). Issuing notices to a mere 8 editors who fit the aforementioned criteria hardly qualifies as indiscriminate spamming. Moreover, based on my reading of the page, canvassing is mainly an issue when the notifications are directed to a particularly group of editors who are expected to vote the same way as the poster. I have no guarantee that the editors I've notified will support my position. On the contrary, there is at least one editor whom I am quite certain will vote in favor of the consensus. Furthermore, the message I have written next to the pings is completely neutral in that it does not seek to sway editors to vote one way or the other. How or whether they decide to contribute to the RFC is entirely up to them. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Robert Dowling.jpeg

Hello!

I noticed this file is both non-free and licensed GFDL 1-2. It is correct that it may be licensed GFDL on openwaterpedia but that is only relevant if whoever uploaded the file to openwaterpedia is the copyright holder. There is no information that back up the claim about GFDL so I do not think we can add that license.

So unless you know more about the file I think the license tag for GFDL should be removed. --MGA73 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference in White Shirts Society

Hi, in this edit to White Shirts Society you added an sfn reference to "Lee 2006, p. 138" but did not define the source. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could add the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet Thought you should see this. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling attention to this thread

For other people reading this talk page, please give this talk page a read Talk:White Shirts Society. I feel that the way this user engaged with me (toobigtokale, 211.43.120.242) was consistently avoidably abrasive. Myself and another user asked them to reflect or dial it back, and they refused.

While I think their feedback contained valid concerns, I don't think they engage with others healthily. Looking at this talk page now, there's clearly further evidence of this behavior elsewhere. seefooddiet (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

seefooddiet Wow, overreaction much? If I recall, I did not call you any insulting names or accuse you of having any malicious intent for what you were writing. Just because you don't like being asked to devote more effort to improve your work does not give you the right to threaten me on my talk page. Need I remind you that you did not have a decisive consensus on the Rfc when I decided to accommodate you.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because you don't like being asked to devote more effort to improve your work blatant mischaracterization of why I was upset. [9][10][11][12]

I forgot the scope of the conversation once and apologized after you called me out, that's hardly a courtesy or accommodation. Edit: misinterpreted comment; also the point of an RFC is not to drag it on, it's to resolve a concern lol. That's the basic function of an RFC and basic polite behavior, not some grace that one extends.

I did not threaten you in this post. If you mean in the edit comment [13], it's because you initially deleted my post in violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS; I wasn't aware that you quickly reverted your own deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your article had glaringly obvious flaws which I pointed out and compelled you to correct by posting "neutrality" and "fringe" tags. Get over it. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying controlling your tone while delivering (indeed, valid) feedback is on you. There's a reason I posted this thread on your talk page; others need to see what you're doubling on right now. This thread is not flattering to you. seefooddiet (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You're clearly trying to harass me into apologizing for upsetting you with my prior comments. Regardless of the issues you have with me, such behavior is not looked on positively in Wikipedia. If you want to complain about my behavior to an administrator, that is your right. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting these harassing posts on my wall. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:HUSH isn't valid here. I'd already written off an apology. Talk pages serve as logs, and I'm logging a valid concern. If you think the concern is not valid, I welcome you to go administrators as well.

I'm done posting. The point has been made, for others to see. seefooddiet (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, WP:HUSH is VERY on-point here.

"User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space."

Explicitly calling on visitors to my talk page to take note not only of my problems with you but interactions with other editors that have NOTHING to do with you clearly falls within the meaning of user-space harassment. I repeat: If you have an issue with me, go to an administrator. Otherwise, get off my talk page. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. I'm gone. seefooddiet (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not showing you civility in the talk page for the White Shirts Society. Notwithstanding said apology, how you have responded here is likewise completely out of line. I urge you to reflect on this the next time you consider launching some scorched-earth policy campaign in retaliation for someone hurting your feelings. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I apologize too for the post. Let's move past this; productive edits were made, which is the important thing. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your current spree of flooding WP talk pages with links to RfC on topics of hardly any relevance to those articles is not helpful and need to stop. Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Jeppiz That depends on whether you’re willing to provide specific criteria regarding which articles are outside the scope of the RFCs. According to Wikipedia’s policies on publicizing an Rfc , it is permissible to post Rfc notices on “closely related articles” . I concede that some there are pages where I’ve posted such tags that may not be closely related to the articles which the Rfc pertains. Others, however, I think are. If you are sincere in your desire to inform me on how to narrowly tailor my approach in a manner that is beneficial to Wikipedia, I’ll listen. However, if this post is just designed to intimidate me into halting tags on ALL talk pages (related or not) in the hopes that the Rfc proposals die on the vine , then I’ll simply chalk your post up to status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Van Buren

Hi, regarding this revert: please don't include image galleries (or images in another form) in RfC statements. The RfC statement should be neutral and brief. Although the brevity is not quantifiable in terms of how many words one image is equivalent to, the images certainly do occupy a not-insignificant amount of space. Adding images is not neutral (even if all of the options are presented): when the RfC statement gets copied to the RfC listings, they become attention-getters, shouting out "come to my RfC - it's better than the rest". Imagine if every RfC about "which image should we use" did this - the RfC listings would be crammed with them, and for this RfC that would be nine images of a, shall we say, controversial figure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Göring RfC

Hi, you're making a bit if mess with your edits. I've fixed them, but going forward, I would suggest you ask first, I'm happy to help if I can. - wolf 03:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved from my tp

Just noticed this now;

Update on Hermann Goering

Thewolfchild I undid your removal of the "Final Thoughts" section. However, in the process, I ended up removing the statement you made. Thought you should know. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been fixed, and I copied everything here to make things easier. Should be ok now. - wolf 03:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thewolfchild Funny you should say that. For someone who wants to change the status quo, you seem to be doing all within your power to help the other side. You think you have the result in the bag when you clearly don't. Hence why Diannaa and Nemov (those most in favor of the status quo) are likewise pushing for the thread to be closed. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. I just noted that a request for closure has been filed, so that no one mistakenly files a duplicate request. You don't know I am most in favor of the status quo. Please don't make such comments that assume you know what I or anyone else is thinking or what anyone's motivations might be. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I don't need to make assumptions to know that you are in favor of the status quo. You've said as much in the Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's when you said "those most in favor" - making the assumption that I care more deeply about the outcome than anyone else. — Diannaa (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Moreover, you have yet to point to a policy which forbids how I've used the subheader. If you can't, you have no right to undo my posts. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi again. About the personal subheading you keep adding to your comment; we don't really do that, as we shouldn't be drawing attention to any specific comment, nor appear to be favouring it. Also, there's just no need for a sub-heading there, we have generic sub-heading just above. Again, if you habe any queations, please ask here first, and I will help if I can. - wolf 03:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You did. Why can't I? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"I'm doing all in my power to help the other side?."...? This is a collaborative process. We try to work together for the benefit of the project. This "Us vs. them" mentality you're fostering is not helpful. Also, if you can't accept my explanation at face value (iow, if you think I'm lying), or if you can't see the logic for yourself, then gimme a bit and I will see if I can find a policy for you. In the meantime, can you chill out a little? There is no need for all the hostility.

And I did what...? - wolf 03:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Chill out a little? You are the one coming onto my talk page and getting on my case for what you perceive as disruptive edits with no evidence to back it up. Look at your own actions before you take issue with my tone. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (#19) Also, can you slow down? I got four edit conflicts trying to post my laat reply. This was alsona problem at the RfC. You keep making edits, saving them, then going back and making changes. (eg: adding a ping like that won't work after like that. You need to go read WP:PING to learn to do it correctly. Also, you need to use the WP:PREVIEW function. Keep checking your posts with it, and only save them once you are certain they are written the way you want, and there are no typo's. This will make life easier for all your fellow editors. And lastly, there is no need to ping me. We are in a discussion, so I will either subscribe to this thread, or watch your page until we are done. Just some a few more helpful tips. (see? I'm not the bad guy here, I'm not against you.) - wolf 03:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe WP:TALKHEADER is what you're looking for. Though I'll say again that it's unfortunate you taken this rather standoffish demeanour. It's really not necessary. Also, it's too bad you couldn't accept my word on the matter, or see th3 logic in for yourself, not having needless, repeat subheaders (one or two neutral ones, typically "arbitrary break" can be added to lengthy RfCs and similar process discussions when they become lengthy, simply to help with navigating and editing. I tried adding one earler, a few times, and you kept removing it. No explanation from you, but no hostrility from me, I just let it go. But then I try adding another neutral section break, and you remove it again, only to then add your own personal header... even though no one else had one...? That didn't seem odd to you? Oh well, no biggie... live and let live, and all that. We should be done here now, but like I said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Have a nice day - wolf 03:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thewolfchild Would you be opposed to writing what you consider a neutral subheader above my comment about the Rfc being closed? That way new editors could be directed to the page while receiving notice that their contribution is needed sooner rather than later in order to more likely reach some form of consensus.Emiya1980 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that would be that bias we spoke about earlier, and again why you don't see personal subheaders above other comments/!votes in the RfC. It the same reason we don't allow canvassing. It's best to just leave to the RfC gawds. Besides, people really supposed to post their !vote and that's it, (though sometimes people will add the odd extra commemt or two.) But if people go overboard, and post too many comments, or direct reponses to others comments, they can fall afoul of the badgering rules, and that you definitely don't want. - wolf 04:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And one item, please stop pinging me, here or at the RfC, as I explained, it's comoletely unneccessary. Thanks - wolf 04:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I warned you……Emiya1980 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, get a grip. It's just a picture ffs. And for the 2nd time, stop pinging me. - wolf 00:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

True, it’s just a picture. However, I devoted a lot of time to that thread and I resent you going out of your way to help flush it down the toilet out of sheer stupidity. I also don’t appreciate your patronizing tone on my wall; least of all from someone who apparently can’t spell. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Too many RFCs

* Overuse of RfCs doesn't help.

It is rare for a single article, or a single editor, to have more than one or two productive RfCs open at a time. Before starting a lot of RfCs, please check in on the RfC talk page for advice.

Hello, Emiya,

I noticed that you have several RFCs open. You probably didn't notice this box in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC when you were creating them, so I'm copying it here.

RFCs are "expensive" in terms of editors' time and attention. Please do not open any more RFCs until the current ones have been resolved. In the future, please avoid having more than two RFCs open at the same time. This means that if you start one RFC on August 1st, and another on August 15th, you probably shouldn't start any more RFCs for the rest of August (unless one of them closes early).

Also, if you make a suggestion on a talk page, and nobody opposes it after a week, you should consider treating that as a case of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus rather than as a situation requiring an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I'll agree to your proposal about not opening more than two Rfcs at a time. However, I'm calling BS on your argument that I should take lack of participation in a discussion as evidence of a sufficient consensus barring the need for an Rfc. As stated in the Wikipedia: Silence and consensus page you linked to in your prior post, "a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent." In response, I refer you to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to read and follow the official editing guideline Wikipedia:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Where you want me to read what exactly? Otherwise, I'm inclined to dismiss your argument as mere stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you should focus on the first three paragraphs, especially the part that says:

"Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia."

In English, the word stonewalling means that someone is refusing to talk to you or cooperate with you. Since I'm answering your questions and I'm encouraging you to do more editing, I'm not stonewalling you. Maybe someone else is?

This is Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, you post a note about this on the talk page, and nobody objects after a reasonable length of time, so you edit the article to change the image.

This is Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, so you edit the article. If (and only if) someone reverts your change or objects, editors start a discussion on the talk page, and the article ends up with whichever image editors choose in the discussion.

This is Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, so you edit the article. If (and only if) someone reverts your change or objects, editors start a discussion on the talk page, but there are only two of you, and you can't agree, so one of you asks for a Wikipedia:Third opinion.

This is N bad behavior: Someone tells you that you're not allowed to change images in articles unless you have a long discussion and/or an RFC first. The rule is that all editors are supposed to WP:Be bold in improving articles. The rule is not, and has never been, that you have to get written permission in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I’ve just been reverted twice on Edward Heath. The second revert came after a majority of editors including myself have indicated on the talk page we are in favor a different lede image. Since you are opposed to me opening another Rfc, how do you recommend I proceed?Emiya1980 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I’ve just confirmed with the reverting editor in question that an Rfc is the proper course of action. If I don’t hear otherwise from you in 24 hours, I plan on doing so.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you still have two RFCs open at the moment, then I recommend that you either wait, or that you let a different editor handle the RFC for that article.

BTW, every comment except yours in Talk:Edward Heath#Lead image was posted three years ago, so it's a poor example of WP:RFCBEFORE discussion. I've pinged the prior participants and the editor who reverted you to that thread, so you can hopefully have a productive discussion and come to an agreement without needing an RFC.

But if you do eventually decide that an RFC is needed, please:

• let someone else handle it, or
• follow the directions in the box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page and "check in on the RfC talk page for advice" (i.e., not your talk page, as it is not the RfC talk page).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait until all Rfcs in which I'm currently engaged are closed. If no consensus has been reached by that time on the discussion page for Edward Heath, then I'll proceed with a new Rfc. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Last warning on infobox image discussions

Consider this your last warning about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You continue to ignore[14] the comments of myself and others[15] 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[16], and baseless accusations[17]. 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)