User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 91

History reaction request
Hi there,

I patrol recent edits and came across a user who was posting a full mobile number. I have reverted all the edits but was wondering whether the history needs to be deleted as well?

All their edits to articles added a number: Jayson11 (talk)

Thank you,

AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have suppressed the edits in question, thanks. Next time, please send an e-mail to the Oversight team; these things should not be reported on-wiki. Salvio 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for that. An article referred me to you WP:REVDELREQUEST. Next time I won’t write on talk pages, cheers AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Evelynkwapong539 / Kof4490
These users, User:Evelynkwapong539 ,User:Kof4490, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.149.110.122, are the same person editing articles relating to Looney Tunes Cartoons Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=977585562. They have been blocked multiple times as Evelynkwapong539, but they created another account and not logging in to get around that. A page they created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters, has been brought up for discussion to be deleted, but since they disagree with this without explaining their reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977473710, they deleted the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977522088 template of deletion policy without explanation.

Proof of similar edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976583210 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959423907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=977521861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976377605 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970247049

I have been patient with this person for a while, but I don't see them ever truly understanding how disruptive their edit warring can be.

Noelephant(talk) 18:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Request
Can you please move the category Category:Ministries of Fiji to Category:Government ministries of Fiji. It was my mistake when I created it because I did not know the common name. Thanks. KRtau16 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅. Now, however, those three articles will need to be recategorised. Best. Salvio 11:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving comment into archived block
I hope you don't mind that I've rolled my comment into the section block, so that it doesn't look like it's after-the-fact or unrelated. Thanks for closing that so that we can all get back to doing useful things. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no probs there. Cheers. Salvio 22:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Paxinos/Sandbox
Greetings, The Sandbox page that was 'Speedly Deleted' is a work in progress. Hence being in a Sandbox. Work is being done to have it properly follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Text is added, and then refined with references. And wordsmith'd to be properly 'encyclopedic' in style and tone. If we need to refine text before adding to the page we will modify the workflow. And proper attributions will be added to the Sandbox's talk page as well. We request that the sandbox page be 'undeleted' so we may proceed with the cleanup process. Paxinos (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , "we"? What do you mean by "we"? That said, the sandbox was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, because its tone was absolutely inappropriate. The first few sentences are a perfect example of the problem: It is difficult to support and to love an institution if we do not know its history. However, to condense the glorious and nearly 1000 year history of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in a single Wiki post, is practically impossible. This succinct chronic recalls some of the principal events that have contributed to the historic evolution of the Order leading up to the present. Therefore, the page will not be undeleted. You may recreate the page; however, please be sure to follow WP:NPOV.  Incidentally, I have the feeling you may have a conflict of interest in respect of this topic. Is that so?  Salvio 18:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)\

Completely understood on the opening sentence - and several others. As I indicated, it will be rewritten to comply with all wikipedia requirements. As to 'we', I am working on the page with a group of others. And, yes we are members of KMFAP. As I also indicated above, the Talk page for the Sandbox will also be updated to include the information on those creating the page and our affiliation with KMFAP as per your conflict of interest guidelines require. To make a clear and unambiguous statement - we fully intend on complying with -all- Wikipedia rules. There is no intent to sell or deceive. Just to state the history as clearly and plainly as possible - with full citations. The current document is in a Sandbox and not intentionally exposed or linked to from other pages. If there is a better mechanism to use while crafting a page I/we as am fully open to recommendations.Paxinos (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , on Wikipedia, accounts can only be operated by a single individual. If, on the other hand, your account is operated by a group, I will need to block it. So, please clarify that you have changed your password and that, from now on, your account will be *yours* only. Other people are free to create their own individual accounts. In that regard, however, please familiarise yourself with our policy on meatpuppetry. Finally, as I said, the page will not be undeleted, because your page, such as it was, violated our policies  in particular, the speedy deletion criterion I used, applies across all namespaces on Wikipedia, therefore it applies to articles, as well as drafts, sandboxes, user pages and so forth. I suggest you recreate the page, but this time you need to make sure its tone is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia. After you're done, you can submit your article for review at article for creation. Alternatively, you may ask for a review of my actions at deletion review, although I'm confident that the deletion will be upheld.  Salvio 20:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your time. And, yes, I would like a copy emailed just to have it for reference - coupled with your notes it is useful guidance going forward.Paxinos (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Incidentally, what is the relationship between the KMFAP and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta? Salvio 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

First, my account has never been shared. Nor will it ever be. It is my personal account. Same with the other member that has been editing. And will be true for anyone else that edits. That is not, nor will it be, an issue. As to SMOM, KMFAP is a Sovereign Entity that was formed as a Federation by several Autonomous Priories that maintained fealty to the original Order. It has no relationship with SMOM. And as you can see from the deleted text, it does not make any disparaging statements about SMOM or any other Order of St John. The page is simply meant to document the history of the order - including full citations as you can see from the page you deleted. And other than some half written parts of the first two sections, should do so in an encyclopedic style and manner. And the first two sections were in the process of being written / rewritten. As stated originally, it is a work in progress. So the real question is, if we inadvertently choose the wrong verbiage will we - and anyone else - be subject to Speedy Deletion without any discussion and/or ability to correct?Paxinos (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , for G11 to apply, the tone needs to be so clearly unencyclopaedic and inappropriate that a rewrite would be required for the draft/article/page to be made acceptable, so it's not really a matter of simply choosing the wrong wording. That said, yes, by nature speedy deletion requires no prior discussion. Salvio 21:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So, we will be rewriting the page. We will - and were planning on - rewriting the first two sections. You can even see notes in the text. Can you tell me if the Sections marked Federation I, II and III are worded appropriately? Just looking for guidance. Is there an appropriate place (Draft: ?) or other where we can work on a page and receive warnings about inappropriateness rather than a quick Speed Deletion? I want to work within the system. And is there any possibility I can get a copy of the deleted text emailed to me?Paxinos (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am off to bed. Tomorrow I'll respond to your queries. Salvio 22:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have skimmed through the "federation" sections and they are less promotional in tone, I'll grant you that. There are still problems however – for example: There is not doubt that the true vocation inspired by the exemplary life of Fra Gerard, and the international influence and prestige attained by Raymond du Puy and To vindicate the rights of the Order, negotiations began at the Russian Imperial Court with Catherine the Great, being the Minister of the Order Bailiff Count Julius Renatus Litta. That said, even in the parts that are not blatantly promotional, the tone is definitely unencyclopaedic. The sections titled "The Knight and the Order" and "The Code of Chivalry", for instance, do not belong in an article and should be expunged in their entirety. More in general, the draft is all over the place. For example, a single paragraph jumps from Russia in December 1797 to the US in 1908. The following paragraph is about some sort of an election taking place in 1954 and the one after that is about a judgment handed down in 1955 by an Italian court. I understand that you are still in the process of writing the article and that, at the moment, it's only a draft, but please understand that even the parts you've been working on for a good while are nowhere near being ready for inclusion. Another small point, per MOS:HONORIFIC, you should not include honorific prefixes, such as "H.R.& I.H."  If you want, I can e-mail you a copy of the draft, but understand that it's not going to be particularly useful, if you want to create a suitable article.  Finally, we do have a namespace devoted to drafts (see Drafts), where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time; however, some speedy deletion criteria apply to the draft namespace as well. And, anyway, even the draft namespace is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. So, I will be very honest with you: since your draft, such as it is now, will require massive improvements before being considered suitable for inclusion, it would probably be safer for you to wordsmith it somewhere else for a bit...  Salvio 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your time and guidance. And, yes, I would like a copy of it emailed - simply as a reference, and when coupled with your comments above will be useful to help craft an appropriate page. Paxinos (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the email!Paxinos (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Again, thank you for the email. Greatly appreciated. As this is my first pass at crafting an article, are you aware of any people or company we can hire for assistance (with proper attribution of course), to guide us to properly write the article and thus ensure it fully and completely complies with the Wikipedia rules and requirements? I can google and find several people/company's, but some don't feel quite right. So I'd rather ask for guidance rather than to make yet another mistake. Again, Not trying to skirt the rules - but rather to make sure I completely follow the rules.Paxinos (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, I can't help you, as I am not familiar with any person or company that you can hire... The only bits of advice I can give you, to make sure that you are not defrauded, are to check out their contribution history and to verify they comply with WP:PAID. Salvio 07:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely understood. Thank you!Paxinos (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Natcoffoloud
You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ thanks. Salvio 10:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

IP block
An IP which you blocked yesterday, is evading the block today under a new IP - apparently from the same IP range - and is reverting in the same topic area as the blocked IP.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP strikes me as a puppet account. As they seem to be alert to changes on articles of similar topics. OyMosby (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2020 (
 * IP once again reverts my edit and goes against RS. Article needs to be protected and IP puppet addressed as mentions. OyMosby (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I was only reverting your historical revisionism on Banjica concentration camp. 212.178.224.144 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And how is it “historical revisionism” when sources you asked for back up with but you decide to erase it. Believe that is called historical revisionism. What is historical revisionist about saying most inmates there were put there for being anti-fascist and Yugoslavian Communists??? Are you really claiming that Ana Antić, an ethnic Serb historian is a revisionist? You are pushing a pov of equating the Holocaust of Jews with anti-fascist Serbs being sent to the camp. Which is revisionism and I will not say what type of ultranationalist group you seem to be toeing here. Classic proejction as you like to say. OyMosby (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅. I am not sure page protection is warranted for the moment, though. The disruption is too limited. Salvio 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Salvio and I hope you are feeling well. No doubt the IP will continue post block or turn to another IP however. IP should perhaps face indefinite block. OyMosby (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , we ordinarily do not impose indefinite blocks on IPs, because they are frequently reassigned. What we we can do is impose short blocks on the IPs that edit disruptively, impose range-blocks, and semi-protect pages. However, each of these actions requires a different level of disruption. At the moment, my feeling is that only individual blocks are appropriate. Should he start IP hopping, then I (or my fellow admins) will start start semi-protecting the articles he hits. Salvio 17:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Thank you Salvio and stay well. OyMosby (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the IP has no interest in changing behavior as per their attacks at me and you (calling you a “terrone” for blocking them, an Italian insult) on their talk page here [1 ] and here [2 ] They ping me even though they're blocked. OyMosby (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , my advice is to ignore them. If they keep pinging you, you can mute them, but, other than that, we have passed the point of diminishing returns and engaging with them further is unlikey to be a fruitful use of your time. Salvio 22:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding filing case at WP:DRR
Hello sir....regards This time i m not here for requesting ur admin action against any sockpuppet.But regarding an edit dispute in which many peoples are involved.I would like to name     and me. This is about Rajput article.As a new user i dont know the procedure to file request.Also i m using mobile device and upon search i found a page regarding case filing which was locked it means i was not able to edit it.Also discussion on talk page of that article has no result so it would be good to move to WP:DR So can you help us here in filing the case.TqHeba Aisha (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am sorry but I don't feel qualified to intervene, I apologise. Articles about castes are a topic area with which I am unfamiliar and, so, I fear I might be more of a hindrance than a help, if I were to get involved... Salvio 22:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its ok sir....any another admin whom u know.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , an editor whose judgment I trust and who is usually active in the topic area is, but he's taking some time off from Wikipedia. You can try , maybe... Salvio 09:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * same pinch......sir i m eagerly waiting for him to come again...and i know these disputes have been settled until now if he had been here.Numerous time we tagged him during the ongoing dispute.Tq for suggesting otherwise.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, please don't try me, I'm not good enough with castes for this. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

Mariolovr
Hi, Salvio. Have you seen the posts on my page? Mariolovr has been trying to ping you, but doesn't quite know how. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Will reply on your talk page. Salvio 11:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

TE
Hey. The TE perm you gave me expires shortly. Are you happy to make it permanent? Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will review your edits and then will make it permanent, if there is nothing particularly egregious that jumps out at me. Feel free to ping me if I haven't replied in a couple of days. Best Salvio 13:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reviewed a sample of your edits and did not see anything particularly concerning; so, I've made your templateeditor thingy permanent. Salvio 07:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Salvio :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

My NPP trial
Hey Salvio, you granted me NPP user right on trial, i know its days before it expires but i would be going on a wikibreak next month. I have reviewed over 100 pages, been active at AFC and I believe i have set a track record. I want to avoid my first edit when cominh back being at WP:RFP, so i am asking of you could extend it indefinitely. Thanks Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  12:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am sorry, but I am a bit short on time right now, so I'd rather let the good people at WP:PERM review your edits and action your request. Salvio 12:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

India's National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC)
Sir i have followed all rhe guidelines while creating it and a user called simon is repeatedly nomination it for delition under G11 criteria. Last time it was deleted without a discussion on whether to keep it or not. I reimproved and i don't think any violation of WP:Pov is here. ALSO ALL SOurces are third party secondary sources but it seems deleting admin also got confused. This time also the particular user has wrote on the talk page of same admin for delition.what to do? This is like spoiling hard works of others.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Heba Aisha (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Improper behavior
Hi! Please, don't take this the wrong way, I looked for ways to solve this issue, found this on Wikipedia and would like to talk: [] - "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner".

Concerning your 1 week partial block, I believe you were deeply unfair as you gave the sentence only 7 minutes after the other user replied, not giving me any time to defend myself. And you also believed the other user without taking the time to check the diffs.

I already made an appeal as well as a reply on the report page, but I don't know how that works or whether it works, so I decided to contact you directly.

I'll just keep it short here as I already went in details in the appeal: there was no edit war anymore since the other user already stopped replying for 3 days. Isn't it reasonable to assume that he left the discussion after such a long time? I checked to see whether he was active somewhere else and he was. So it wasn't a question of him being offline for 3 days. What was I to do? He stopped replying on the talk page.

And all his claims in the message that you partially blocked me for are false. I was blocked for some lies. There were no 3 users who told me for days. The quotes were relevant and I replied to his attention to the possibilities of dispute resolution.

In my reply to him, I explained that Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources when certain conditions are met. His response was that "will not play any more of your games", when I asked him to explain what he meant, he stopped replying. For 3 days. Giving the impression that he dropped the discussion. After 3 days of silence from his part, he reported me.

I don't expect you to blindly believe me, which is why I provided the diffs on the appeal and report page, but you did blindly believe him since you didn't even check the diffs to see whether his story adds up, and didn't even give me time to defend myself. Which is, you know, disappointing.

What is done is done. Even if I find it unfair, I am fine with a 7 days partial block on that page, the problem is that after the 7 days partial blocks is done and I go back, his reply would be "you were already blocked for this" and will refuse to discuss so I cannot make an edit because I would get reported for it, despite being in accordance with the policy.

Concerning the actual reason for this discussion, Wikipedia's policy, I started in the appeal how the policy does not support his stance. He never gave me a response of why it isn't like that, but simply a "you misunderstood our policy" and when I asked why an evasive "I will not play your games" response, as showed in the diffs and as it can be seen on the talk page. A far cry from what he actually said in the report.

Please, review the report. If you could make me understand why the partial block is still justifiable in spite of everything I just said, I will accept it, but given the circumstances, I hope you can see how I have a hard time believing the block was fair when my point of view was bring ignored, his believed without checking the diffs to see whether he tells the truth and I was blocked for edit warring when the other user stopped replying for 3 days while still being active somewhere else on Wikipedia.

Hypothetically. Let's say this block remains. 7 days pass, and I wish to bring up the question again, because Wikipedia's policy allows the use of primary sources in certain conditions, unlike what the other user said. How should I appach it properly? Normally we discuss. But what if he drops the discussion, and then reports me for edit warring. That would be a second abuse. What is there to be done when you have Wikipedia's policy on your side but not the consensus of the other user? LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the point is very simple: as I said in the block notice, you were engaged in a slow-burning edit war, because you were repeatedly reinserting some quotes into the articles, even though multiple other editors disagreed with you and reverted your edits. In these cases, the appropriate response is to follow WP:DR and to get a consensus on the talk page of the article (or at a noticeboard) and *then* repeat the edit. In short, you knew that other editors disagreed with the material you wanted to add, as evidenced by the fact that they had repeatedly reverted your edit and, nonetheless, you continued to reinsert the same quotes into the article without consensus. That is disruptive and that is why you were blocked. The fact that you think you were right is irrelevant in this context: edit warring is still disruptive and block-worthy even if you think you are right.  Furthermore, I did not blindly believe the editor who reported you. I checked the article's history, reviewed your edits and found that you were indeed edit warring. As I result, I imposed a partial block so that you would still be able to edit the relevant talk page, hoping that you could come to a consensus on the issue in the meantime. The point is not that you were right or wrong on the merits, the point is that, when your edits are reverted, you should discuss and find consensus, rather than simply keep reverting back.  Salvio 07:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you listening and for replying, I only reinserted some quotes into the articles the moment those users dropped the discussion on the relevant talk page, this is why I find it unfair. I did not reinsert the edits right in the middle of the discussion. I knew that the first user disagreed, but then he stopped replying on the talk page for 3 days while still being active on Wikipedia. He did not try to PM me, talk to me on the talk page or do anything to show me he's still interested in the discussion. Then I reinserted the quotes. The 1 other user who reverted my edits based on a religious discussion he had, I discussed with him on his talk page arguing that it's not the same case, it's a faulty comparison. He did not reply, I waited 2 days since his last message, then I saw he replied in some other parts in Wikipedia. Then I reinserted the quotes, and then the first user reported me for edit warring. Wikipedia doesn't give a clear term on how long you should wait after an edit war when the other user dropped the discussion, but it says that "Disagreements should be resolved through discussion", how can they be solved if the other user doesn't discuss anymore?


 * I would also like to point out that "they (multiple users) had repeatedly reverted your edit" is wrong. This is what I was talking about. Only the first user repeatedly reverted my edits, that is 1/3, until we realized there's an edit war and discussed a lot on the talk page. Then he stopped replying for 3 days while still active on Wikipedia and ended with "I will not play your games anymore", these 3 separate events together can be easily interprted as leaving the discussion. While the 2nd user, only reverted me once, that was it, no multiple reverts. The last user did not even side with him and never reverted my edits. So we have the 1st user who reported me claiming that 3 users constantly tried to talk me out of it for days. When in fact the 1st user left the talk page 3 days ago, the 2nd user only reverted me once and did not reply on the talk page for 2 days after his revert, while the 3rd user did not even revert me a single time. So, no matter how you stretch it, what the 1st user said that "three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days" which you confirmed to believe with that statement, "they (multiple users) had repeatedly reverted your edit" is an obvious lie. But don't take my word for it, please check in the diffs whether there are at least 2 reverts by the 2nd user and at least 1 revert by the 3rd user. There aren't. I guess the lesson here is that on Wikipedia you can get away with lies, which is rather disappointing. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right, I'll correct my statement: your edits were reverted by two editors. However, this does not change the point I was trying to make that there was no consensus supporting your edit. In these cases, you are not supposed to continue reverting. I don't know how else to say it. That's the problem: you continued to revert without looking for a consensus. That's disruptive. The fact that the other editor did not respond to you for three days should not be taken as any sort of consensus. The best solution, in this case, would have been to take the issue to a noticeboard. Alternatively, you could have reminded the editor on his talk page that he had failed to reply to you or you could have left a note on the article's talk page that, in the absence of explicit opposition, in a few days you would have repeated the edit. If you had done any of those things, I would not have blocked you. You see, the thing is, on Wikipedia you are not supposed to wear down your opposition, so that as soon as they do not reply in a timely fashion you feel authorised to revert the article back to your preferred version. Instead, you are supposed to solve disputes through consensus-building processes.  Salvio 11:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, even if they stopped replying on the talk page, I should not have assumed they have dropped the discussion and I shouldn't have reverted simply because they didn't reply. For future situations, I understand now that the proper course of action is to try to contact them through other means, but what if they don't reply on those means either? If they didn't reply on the talk page while online and active on other pages, I doubt they would have replied somewhere else. What is there to do when I get no concensus and no response from a user? If I forward it to a noticeboard and the noticeboard agrees with me, can I make the changes even if the original user still didn't give concensus? I made no note on the talk page that the undo was made in the absence of explicit opposition, but that was my reasoning, as I thought it was self-evident from the talk page. I understand now that I should have been more clear with the reason for the undo, if such a situation happens again, I will leave a note. I did not attempt to wear down my opposition, if anything, I was asking questions to explain their stances in order to build concensus the moment they stopped replying. Anyway, point is, I understand why I was blocked now and it was reasonable, thank you again for taking the time to explain it to me. Just a last question: the moment we stopped talking, I have explained my stance with quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies, they did not with one saying 'you misunderstood our policy' and the other 'that policy was never popular on Wikipedia', when I asked them to explain what they mean, they both didn't reply. Since you said that my blocking was not because of the right or wrong of my merits, but only on the edit warring. The moment I wish to come back on the relevant page, I'm thinking I should make a post on the relevant talk page, based on the reasoning above (from my last discussion with the other user) and if anyone has any objections. If there are no objections, after how long I should restore my edit? With a note mentioning that in the absence of explicit opposition of course. And if they do reply, we talk and we don't reach concensus, I have the policy on my side and they have the numbers on their side, where is the proper place to ask other users for an arbitration of this? The two users disagreed for different reasons, but in the event that they disagree for the same reason, one could easily state that he is the 3rd party and the other claim to have won through a 3rd party, without the actual relevant policies even bring addressed. In other words, if such a situation arises, what can I do to avoid the rule of numbers over the rule of rules? Thank you. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , basically, when there is a dispute between editors, the first port of call is the article's talk page. If that doesn't work, for whatever reason, you have various avenues open to you. For instance, if the dispute is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask for a third opinion.  Otherwise, you can try asking for help at the relevant WikiProject or, alternatively, try filing a request at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Finally, if nothing else works, you can try an WP:RFC.  However, one important point: in the end, you must be ready to accept that consensus may be against you. You may think that policy is on your side and that your opponents are simply wrong and stubborn. However, when multiple people disagree with you and consensus is against you (not saying this is case here, I'm talking in general), you must accept it. Continuing to argue in the face of a clear consensus can be considered disruptive.  Salvio 16:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)