User talk:Emiya1980/Old page

Size of Lenin Picture

Infobox software sets its own screen size, and fixing the size can prevent the infobox from adjusting for varying sizes found on mobile devices and tablets, etc. Britmax (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Joseph Stalin.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
You have already had the default image size in an infobox explained to you. Please stop playing around with the article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Emiya1980. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Franz von Papen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Konrad Adenauer, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. Dr. K. 23:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joseph Goebbels. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 10:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Adolf Hitler. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 10:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Kurt von Schleicher.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 10:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck

Please see WP:FLAGCRUFT. The words carry the necessary information, flags are simply decorative. Please don't insert them again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My KenI think you're using an overly restrictive reading of what constitutes an inappropriate encyclopedic usage of flags. The link you provided states that "icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative ". It goes on to say that " visual icons are appropriate when used to aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". Currently, editors are prohibited from trying to apply any numbering system in relation to Germany's chancellors. Therefore, since Germany has gone through up to 5 different forms in the 20th century alone, it would give readers a better idea where Germany's numerous chancellors fall chronologically if they had a visual aid indicating which period of German history such statesmen were associated with in the articles written about them. This is especially true for visitors who learn better using pictures as reference rather than relying purely on text. Feedback?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

No, I'm not. If you want the flags in the infobox, get a consensus for them on the talk page, otherwise they'll be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are now adding FLAGCRUFT to other articles, ignoring what you've been informed of here. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the flag icons that have not already been removed by other editors. Please take the hint that should come with the fact that multiple editors are reverting you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

L:Beyond My Ken If I recall correctly, you told me not to include flag icons on Otto von Bismarck. In order to avoid an edit war, I respected your request and left that page alone. More to the point, I had a chance to look at the edit history for the pages you're talking about. From what I can tell, you're the only one who is reverting these edits after I explained how their inclusion serves an encyclopedic purpose. If the wikipedia community finds these edits to be disruptives, show me other users besides yourself who feel this way. Otherwise, stop trying to impose your own interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on other editors. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

No, I'm not the only editor who is reverting you, because for quite a few of your edits, I found that the flags had already been removed. Just stop putting WP:Flagcruft into infoboxes, and there won't be any problem. If you continue, it may become an issue that needs to be adjudicated by admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken The users you are referring to removed my flags from the infobox before I explained how they were applicable to certain but not all titles. Based on the edit history, there is no indication that they have any issues with my contributions after I explained my reasoning for it. You're the only one who seems unsatisfied by it. The fact that you have not given me any specific information information contradicting what I've just said seems to confirm this. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

Look again, the flags are not there. If they are, I will remove them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you removed them. You don't have the authority to impose your own interpretations on editors across multiple pages and threaten them with sanctions if they don't conform to your opinion. If you can't show otherwise, I'll bring this matter to the administrators attention myself. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

Yes, I actually have the authority of consensus to do so. If you don't think I do, file a complaint on the noticeboards.

Look, only a very few people are cognizant of which the hundreds of flags are which. They will certainly recognize the Nazi flag, and that of the Soviet Union, but the flag of East Germany or that of West Germany, or the Weimer Republic? No, few people actually have those flags memorized. On the other hand, the words "East Germany", "West Germany" and "Weimer Republic" convey all the information that is needed, and are available to anyone who reads English.

We are an encyclopedia, not a child's picture book, and since flags do not convey information to the vast majority of our readers, they are almost purely decorative. Please do not continue to add them any more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"The Third Reich"

Please do not change the designation "Nazi Germany: to "Third Reich" or "The Third Reich". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope that you are taking notice...

...that multiple experienced Wikipedians are reverting your edits. I'm sure that by this time you don't care a fig for what I advise, but I'm going to go ahead anyway and suggest that you slow down and take in the messages that they're sending you, both implicitly in their reverts and explicitly in their edit summaries.

You are going to need to adapt your editing to what's expected on Wikipedia, and stop thinking that you can go against consensus and normal editing protocol with impunity, and bend Wikipedia to your will. I extend to you WP:AGF to the extent that I believe that you think you are improving the article with you changes, but the editors who are reverting you, including myself, are telling you that you are not, and if you don't begin to start listening to them soon, you're going to be heading towards a block from editing.

That's not a threat: I am not an admin and cannot block you, that's an observation based on 12 years of experience here -- I've seen cases such as yours many times, and that's typically how they end up. Please do pay attention to what you're being told. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Emiya1980, I'm sure you think you are making productive changes to assist the project but, instead, you are being highly disruptive. You can have all of the best intentions, but editing requires WP:COMPETENCE which your track record suggests you do not have. If you are being asked to stop 'helping' by multiple experienced editors, don't you comprehend that the problem lies with you and not everyone else? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Iryna Harpy Based on what you are saying, I'm at risk of being blocked if I continue making edits which other members of the community don't find constructive. Besides the various restrictions involving the infobox you've brought to my attention, you're not giving me a lot of things to go by to prevent this from happening again in the future.

Strictly speaking, the amount of times my edits have been reverted is not an accurate yardstick of my competence as an editor. Every editor (including veteran gatekeepers like yourselves) have their own subjective taste for what is a constructive contribution and what is not. Considering that conflicting opinions are inevitable in a project as big as this, it's unreasonable to find fault with me every time one or a few of the thousands of people who contribute to your website disagree with one of my edits. One person's trash is another's treasure. I am not a mind-reader.

If you want me to stop what you consider "disruptive edits", it would be helpful if I could see a list of all the various standards you are expecting me to follow (i.e: maximum sentence length, acceptable sentence structures, things that should not be included in certain parts of the articles, edits requiring consensus approval, proper diction etc.). If you send me links to such guidelines , I'm willing to look at them and adjust my edits accordingly. Beyond that, I don't know what else I can do to tailor my editing approach to your expectations. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

The standards are inherent in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are available for all to read. You are responsible for understanding the most important ones (not necessarily all the minutia), and editing so as to not violate them -- no one is going to take you by the hand and do it for you, especially since (so far) you haven't listened when you've been informed.

I've put a standard "Welcome" message at the top of your talk page which has links you may find useful. If you're uncertain about what is and isn't allowed, and what is and isn't encouraged, I would take some time off from making edits, and spend that time going through those links and reading the material there. Editing within the acceptable boundaries will decrease the amount of grief you're getting from other editors, and make your time here more pleasant for everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Where can a comprehensive list of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines be found? Assuming they're "available for everyone to read",certainly there is a page where everyone can see them. The sooner I can get a fair understanding of what you're expecting from me, the sooner we can sweep this under the rug. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of writing an essay on my talk page warning me about suspension? Emiya1980 (talk)

There are many policies and guidelines, and they are not, as far as I know, listed on a single page. Editing style guidelines (the "Manual of Style") will be found by following the many links on WP:MOS - note that these are guidelines and not mandatory policies, but should be followed unless there is an exceedingly good reason not to, since they were reached by a consensus of editors. As for policies, which are mandatory, start with the Five Pillars (WP:5P), which are the most important policies, the "pillars" on which Wikipedia is built, and go from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Why go to the bother?" A question I am beginning to ask myself, considering your responses. In the future perhaps I'll just revert you (with an edit summary}, and let you walk your own path to being sanctioned. BTW, no one gets "suspended" from Wikipedia, they get "blocked" from editing, or, in the very worst cases, "banned" from the website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Another direct link of use to you is a general policies and guidelines page, but - as suggested by Beyond My Ken - it's down to you to read up carefully and familiarise yourself with as much as possible before you start editing. I did not intend 'competence' to read in a derogatory manner, rather that WP:BOLD comes with the warning of being cautious. In the end, no editors have comfortably stepped into the complexities of editing without making errors. It simply means that you need to listen and edit with care. There is no mentoring system that could ever trump gaining real experience the hard way. I wouldn't want you to get disheartened, but you have had assistance from at least two editors now who have been genuinely patient with you in trying to explain how Wikipedia works. There are far less amiable 'gatekeepers' (a term I wouldn't throw around too freely outside of the confines of your own talk page!). Should your editing behaviour annoy them, you could end up getting blocked. Spend some time on uncontroversial articles in need of better references, copyediting, etc. It's a good way to do something constructive while familiarising yourself with the complexities of policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Emiya1980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Emiya1980, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Emiya1980! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Are you in some way related to the editor User:Ernio48? I ask because both accounts have made similar editsL for instance adding flags to the info0boxes of German political and military subject articles. What, if any, is the relationship? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You can answer my question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ernio48. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A CU check has come back with the result that you and Ernio48 are unrelated, so my apologies to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Hermann Göring.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I was not aware that I was in a content dispute with anyone. Which disruptive edits are you referring to?Emiya1980 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)User:Emiya1980

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Emiya1980. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop

99% of the time when an editor is making the same changes across a bunch of articles, a mistaken thought process is involved and there is a lack of consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. The pedantic change of "Minister-President of Prussia" to "Minister-President of the Free State of Prussia" is no more useful to our readers than changing "Governor of Virginia" to "Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia" or the "State of Rhode Island" to the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". You're not being helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I don't know what you're talking about. That was not me.

[1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken In all candidness, I did not know I made the change to Göring's listing as Minister President of Prussia. For that, I apologize. With that being said, I would like to get others' opinions on the talk page regarding whether to refer to Goring as the "President of the Reichstag" or "President of the German Reichstag".

While one familiar with German politics would know right away what country the office belonged to, someone unfamiliar with the office. Consequently, unless you have any objection, I will go and make my case there and see whether other wikipedians are of the same mind that such a change amounts to nothing more than rampant pedantry. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You can make your case, of course, but first take a look at Charles Schumer, who, while he is listed as a "United States Senator" is not listed as "United States Senate Minority Leader" but simply as "Senate Minority Leader". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Both Chris and BMK raise good points in which I agree. I would suggest you give consideration to them; going forward. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Chancellors of Germany

Emiya1980, I understand and can accept that "Chancellor of the German Reich" is a more accurate translation of Reichskanzler. However, I do not see the necessity for the adding of "Weimar Republic" beneath. Your reasoning saying that it demonstrates the individual is head of a country and not a mere organisation, in my mind makes no sense. I do not know any organisation called "Germany" - as such it is unnecessary and doesn't help the readers. Furthermore, Weimar Republic is an unofficial name of the country during that period. In addition to this, you have changed the title of the post-war Chancellors from "Chancellor of Germany" (with the addition of "West Germany" beneath to specify which Germany - as there were two at the time, unlike during the Weimar Republic) to Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. I understand this is a very accurate translation of the title from Germany - but I do not see it as necessary as do many fellow editors, because until now it has worked fine with no-one having an issue. Many head of states and governments have long titles which aren't placed in the infobox as it just clutters is up. For example, the French President is shown as "President of France", but when directly translating from french it should be "President of the Republic" or the Spanish Prime Minister should be if directly translated "President of the Government of Spain" - yet in the infobox it is "Prime Minister of Spain". The infobox is not there to fully explain each office the individual has held, but more to give a quick overview of the office held. As such looking at the situation, I would like to reverse the changes to the post-war chancellors but keep the title of "Chancellor of the German Reich" for those serving during the Weimar Republic. Is this acceptable for you? Thank you for going to dialogue and not just an editing war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JWHBerlin (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

JWHBerlin Thank you for following up with me. After reading your post, I can tell that you really took the time to think over my message. I really appreciate it.

Per your suggestion, I'm willing to concede the "Weimar Republic" label in exchange for listing the Chancellors of that period as "Chancellors of the German Reich". With that being, I may have some reservations about listing Chancellors of West Germany as "Chancellors of Germany" while listing all politicians in East Germany as "[officials] of the German Democratic Republic". However, I think that is a matter which can be brought up later on the post-war chancellors' discussion pages. Is that a fair compromise? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited José Moñino, 1st Count of Floridablanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrei Gromyko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Charles Foster Kane, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Fate/stay night characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

image for the page Alexei Rykov

Dear User Emiya1980, I would like to replace the image on the page Alexei Rykov which you recently inserted. The problem with this image is that it is impossible to date it, unclear from what source this image is taken and who is the author. Eventually I would like to nominate the page for Feature Article and it is impossible to do if these issues are not fixed. --Armenius vambery (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Nazis

Please gain consensus before over-riding the guidelines on photo sizing. I have no idea where the concerns you note have been raised, and it seems unhelpful for readers to force the size of images to make them smaller (how does this help them to understand the topic, and this seems really unhelpful for vision-impaired readers). If the photograph is propagandistic, a better alternative is to find a more neutral photo. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D The concerns were originally raised by Beyond My Ken. I made changes to pages of other Nazis as part of an informal compromise I reached with him regarding the Hermann Goering article. Our discussion can be seen in the section on Beyond My Ken's talk page entitled "Infobox Pictures for Nazi Officials." Emiya1980(talk) 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Such a change needs to be supported by a consensus to revise the guidelines/policies around image sizing. It cannot be reached through a talk page conversation between two editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Gennady Yanayev.jpg

File:Gennady Yanayev.jpg is licensed as non-free content which means each use of it needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The file has been repeatedly removed from List of leaders of the Soviet Union because its use in that article doesn't comply with this policy. A freely-licensed or public domain image of Yanayev can be used instead, but a non-free one is going to continue to be removed as long as it doesn't comply with relevant policy. When you're not sure why a file was removed, it's good practice to check the page history for edit sums explaining why. If you find an edit sum and don't understand it, then you can always ask for clarification. Not every image you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed pretty much determines how it may be used. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally allows non-free images of deceased individuals to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the individual as explained in item 1 of WP:NFCI, but the use of the same file in other articles (such as list articles) is typically not considered a compliant when the file is just used for identification purposes or because the person is mentioned by name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) ‎

What is the absolute point of shrinking the portraits of Nazis by several pixels?

Apparently, Wikipedia is glorifying Nazis by showing their middle-aged wrinkly craggy faces in it's full black and white 1940s glory, God forbid the Neo-Nazis click on them to access their full horrifying visage.

The point is that photos in infoboxes are meant to help the reader identify what the subject looks lilke, and not to glorify them by presenting them at overwhelmingly large sizes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have put a notice on your talk page, reminding you to follow WP:BRD by discussing your objections instead of reverting back to your preferred versions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Emiya1980. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler article lead

Some of your recent changes were reverted. Such major sentence wording changes needs to be supported by a consensus. Per WP:BRD that is what needs to be done. If others, agree, so be it. Think about it. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War infobox

Hello, I started a discussion of the infobox at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). Could you please join this discussion rather than revert? Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to discuss the rationale for your WP:BOLD changes, and seek consensus. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Princeps senatus does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 01:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Preview – Consolidate – Summarize

Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 02:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Move of Roman politician articles

You are apparently busy moving all sorts of pages of Roman politicians to other names. Please don't do that without first discussing such fundamental moves first. There might very well be no consensus for such unilateral and fundamental change. In many case there even isn't certainty about death or birth dates of the persons involved so the name the way you do is to broad/arbitrary. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2019, 20:26 CET

I agree with user:fdewaele. The first consulship is the standard mean of identification for Roman Republican politicians. Using the elder/the younger is very misleading because there were often more than two people of the same name, and it is not attested in the sources. Using living dates is likewise a problem as these dates are often conjectures. More importantly, academic sources generally use the first consulship (or the most important magistracy) as the best mean of identification. I think you should revert your changes. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

fdwaele T8612 In light of the concerns expressed, I will make no further changes to Roman politicians of the kind mentioned. With that being said, I think we should hold a discussion on such changes in the talk page before reverting them outright. As noted in Wikipedia's "be bold" policy, users are not discouraged from making such unilateral edits if they think it will improve the article's quality as an education tool. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John S. Gray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite video game

You see. When writing video game references we need to make them fully detailed. See the template cite video game. Fate/stay night was never licensed for English releases so quotes can also be get from English patches made by fans. As a result, the quote is pointless. Instead, in order to also avoid WP:Undue weight, we just write the level in which the reference takes place into. See Shirou Emiya's article as an example. Rather than using quote, we use instead the day in which something happens in the game or possible sequence which Type-Moon often names. Still, about character lists try not to in overdetails when editing section and focus only on major points. Happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, in case you are interested, some characters from the franchise could obtain their own article but only if they wp:notability. For this they need to have real world information to balance the fictional one. Asking to have as much as Shirou and Saber is pushing so in case you want to give Kotomine an article it might be possible if you find reviews of the first Fate/stay night anime or the Zero prequel. However, it might be difficult. The only other two characters I imagine being able to have their own articles are Waver and Illya since they got their own spinoff so reviews might be possible. In the case of Rider I merged her article since it barely had real world information. Try using Sakura or Kiritsugu as examples to follow in case you are interested. There was a Russian user who managed to add some creation info but he is busy. The type moon wiki has access to multiple books but I've never checked them carefully. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yoshijirō Umezu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Your recent editing history at Pacific War 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Edit warring against the results of a RfC which concluded several months ago and which you participated in is awful conduct. Please stop this. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just some attention for a talk page

Hi, just since you were active on the Pacific War Talk page before, I thought you might be interested in a proposal here: Talk:Empire of Japan#Predecessors and Successors --Havsjö (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)