User talk:Reigen/Avernus

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Emerson 07 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Hans Adler 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in History of the French line of succession}}. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 05:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning for talk page vandalism
You have been editing another editor's comments in a very inappropriate way, in one case edit warring against an admin. I consider this edit particularly concerning. When another editor confronts you with your previous behaviour and proves it with a diff, then absent very special circumstances such as outing concerns, removing that diff is an unambiguous act of talk page vandalism (see WP:VAND). For the next similarly clear violation of WP:TALK I will report you to WP:AIV, but of course any admin may decide on the other instances as well. Hans Adler 13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Copied from my talk page. Let's keep the discussion in one place, please.] Under WP: NPA, personal attacks like those could be removed. I have read the messages, and I shall attempt to follow them. However, the continued existence of those messages would hurt my reputation in the community. If you have any objections on this, tell me immediately. I shall delete them again soon.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:NPA is too extreme, and if you continue in this manner someone will block you. What you removed were at most borderline personal attacks, and they were closely related to the content discussion. Also, as I demonstrated with my link above, in at least one case you removed something that clearly wasn't a personal attack. One could even argue that by removing the proving diff you faked a personal attack where previously there was none. (Lack of proof is an important factor in evaluating personal attacks.) Hans Adler 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These "borderline personal attacks", however, seem to be enticing a host of meatpuppets. According to WP: NPA, "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream constitutes as a personal attack." In removing some text, I have been very careful, and I left out those which are content-based. If personal attacks like this could be condoned on the basis that they were closely related to the content discussion, then WP: NPA would be for nothing. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Emerson, if you think that someone else's comment about you is a personal attack, the proper procedure is to point it out as such and ask them to strike it ( like this ). This preserves the record while also making it clear that the inappropriate language is not to be heeded. If the other person will not do so, the next step is to report the incident to WP:WQA. Be advised, however, that your own civility is also a legitimate topic for discussion if you take this step.

I'm going to give you one more piece of unsolicited advice. I think you have some legitimate grievances with the nature of the History of the French line of succession page. That is to say, not everything you are saying is wrong. However, if you wish to have any positive effect on the situation, you need to learn some better etiquette, particularly listening to others and seeking consensus. That's all I have to say, unless you seek further conversation with me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. However, according to WP: NPA, derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Further, strikethrough can still be read, which can summon additional meatpuppets.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making claims about "meatpuppets" being "summoned" by personal attacks against you. Can you give me the names/IPs of some of these meatpuppets so that I can see what you are referring to? Hans Adler 16:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Hello Emerson 07 and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Yopie (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with my "editing pattern" exactly? Emerson 07 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Small text

Louis of Valois
Hi. Please don't delete Louis of Valois again. If you do, I can report you for Vandalism. The age of the prince does not matter and he has nothing to do with Henry III of France. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What does sock puppetry have to do with anything? Your name was mentioned in a sock puppetry case here. Plus, you have been accused of what I am accusing you now here. So please just stop deleting articles or reverting edits. You have nothing to stand on and you know it. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)