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 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)
 * 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.

Talkback
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. 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. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  10:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

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

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)


 * I 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)