| Revision as of 04:12, 15 January 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,099 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Elizium23/Archive 13) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:18, 15 January 2021 edit undoX4n6 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,069 edits →Wilton Gregory: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| :{{u|SomeBodyAnyBody05}}, I will continue to revert and warn you, but the next step will be ] if you don't feel like citing your sources properly. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | :{{u|SomeBodyAnyBody05}}, I will continue to revert and warn you, but the next step will be ] if you don't feel like citing your sources properly. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| @], But you reverting me when I put one of many sources in my edit summary is abusing reverting. And when use that policy ] that is generally referring to citing on the biographical article itself as the sourced information is presented there, see ] where sources are already presented. ] from the policy is defined as :"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." My edit was improving the article. Us wikipedians are generally supposed to talk to one another about issues than revert and argue as that is disruptive editing to the project in of itself. And threatening me by saying that you will take it to ANI is a red flag, We have to stay ] to cooperate. ] (]) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | @], But you reverting me when I put one of many sources in my edit summary is abusing reverting. And when use that policy ] that is generally referring to citing on the biographical article itself as the sourced information is presented there, see ] where sources are already presented. ] from the policy is defined as :"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." My edit was improving the article. Us wikipedians are generally supposed to talk to one another about issues than revert and argue as that is disruptive editing to the project in of itself. And threatening me by saying that you will take it to ANI is a red flag, We have to stay ] to cooperate. ] (]) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == Wilton Gregory == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 05:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:18, 15 January 2021
Welcome to my talk page!
- Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
- If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
- Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Elizium23}}.
- I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
- Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
- Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
 Archives | |||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edits on "slurs"
Seeing as I can not reply on my talk page I have come to yours. Nigger is used in a negative context majority of the time by both black and white communities so it is not comparable. Negro would be a better example, a name chosen as the preferred reference by the people it represents but it has fallen out of fashion in more modern times whereas Yid is still current, was chosen as the preferred designation by the people it represents (in this context) and is used in a negative way by a very small minority in a very small area in a very small field. Sionso (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sionso, please provide reliable secondary sources to prove this. I have shown you four. Elizium23 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I read the reliable secondary sources page and it doesn't cover the articles you linked... Sionso (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Canging my edits
I have now added citations on the Little Satan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranazad (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey
The source uses the word "luxurious baths", I think I should add then "" between the word luxurious, this not my own commentary or my own personal analysis .Eliko007 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the note. Eliko007 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Zara Kay "defamation" accusation
Hello, there's nothing defamatory about what I wrote. You don't have the authority to ban me from editing based on a pointless accusation. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwalchmai100 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ava Max
The warning you issued for Edit Warring is incorrect. I reverted the page to include sourced content after the other user reverted my edit. I see that you have reverted my edits, which were sourced - and reverted back to the unsourced version of the content regarding the DOB of the user. Could you please provide a source for the DOB, as I had done? There is an exemption for edit warring under for unsourced content in BLPs. An archived myspace account is not a valid source. Thank you. ~RAM (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
List of canonically crowned images
I just dropped a rangeblock on that California IP. I'm wondering if that article should be protected--but there's a bunch more articles that they work on. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, could it be our old friend, Lloydbaltazar? Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Why?
Tagging someone's page is against policy! Matt Campbell (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well i went Here, just like you said. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Saint Peter
Elizium, Happy new year, and God bless you. Misplaced Pages is not "a 💕 that anyone can edit?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimundo P B Henriques (talk • contribs) 11:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:Raimundo P B Henriques, almost anyone, yes, and you did! But your additions were not submitted with reliable secondary sources, as Elizium and Epinoia indicated. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Canadian rapists
Could you provide the official list of Canadian rapists, please? I could not find any such list with Storheim in it. Also, could I ask you do not restore dead and empty links and BLP issues without an official confirmation provided? Please, provide working links only and official sources regarding BLP. Thank you. OrthodoxLuna (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)OrthodoxLuna
Need two additional eyes
Hi, thanks for the report regarding P. B. Kipland – can you keep an eye on the situation and add a short message on my talk page if my warning didn't help? I have a feeling there's an edit upcoming that needs attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring
Do STOP this childish edit-warring. As I have explained to you multiple times, what I am doing is consistent with the pages as set up. If you wish to reject these edits, either delete ALL the other similar edits on the page or add the references yourself. To do the former would clearly be an act of vandalism - and the corollary of that is blindingly obvious. Rcb1 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1
- Rcb1, you are an editor of 13 years. We are asking you to comply with a fundamental policy. Your abusive and dismissive and combative responses are not helping your case. I will continue reverting edits that do not comply with policy, and then it will be off to WP:ANI for a referendum. Elizium23 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of your high-handed attitude, to the point that I am considering giving up on Misplaced Pages. When you talk about "we", you mean "I", for no one else is asking me to change what I am doing. Nor would they because, as you have made no attempt to deny, my edits are consistent with the way that the pages are formatted, irrespective of the seeming obsession with "policy" you mention.
I am going to stop adding births, however valid the edits clearly are, as I cannot summon the will to persist with this fatuous debate with you every time I make an edit.
I cannot begin to understand why you have chosen to delete just my edits and not the many hundreds of essentially other identical edits, unless you are pursuing a personal vendetta. I wish to have no further contact with you and I will make no further response to you messages. Now leave me alone! ````rcb1 Rcb1 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1
Please have alook
Hello! Could you have a look at the page Spiritus Domini I recently created? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Harassing "warning"
I'm not in a mood for that nonsense. Don't. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Misusing the disruptive editing warning template
That was a misuse of a disruptive editing template as I was editing in good faith. Of course I'm not going to like receiving unnecessary warnings in minor addition to list pages. I would have like if you personally contacted me instead of reverting. Usually if person's death or birth is cited on their individual article, You don't have to cite their death, especially if it is a person who died over 30 years ago. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- SomeBodyAnyBody05, I will continue to revert and warn you, but the next step will be WP:ANI if you don't feel like citing your sources properly. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@User:Elizium23, But you reverting me when I put one of many sources in my edit summary is abusing reverting. And when use that policy WP:ONUS that is generally referring to citing on the biographical article itself as the sourced information is presented there, see Frank Church where sources are already presented. Disruptive Editing from the policy is defined as :"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." My edit was improving the article. Us wikipedians are generally supposed to talk to one another about issues than revert and argue as that is disruptive editing to the project in of itself. And threatening me by saying that you will take it to ANI is a red flag, We have to stay WP:COOL to cooperate. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wilton Gregory
Your recent editing history at Wilton Daniel Gregory 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. X4n6 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)