User talk:FábioScorpio

August 2021

Hello, I'm Cjquines10. I noticed that you recently removed content from Starfire (Teen Titans) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  cjquines  (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained the reason for my editing in the proper field for this. And Starfire is not pansexual/LGBT. --2804:2FB0:195:7600:1072:5A53:89E9:6EEE (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Archidamus III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleonymus. 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) 09:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

This comment is not acceptable. Please remove it. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Selene. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JBL (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Primefac (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• FabioScorpio, we have talked this over with some admins, and this comment was SO unacceptable that you are now blocked until you take it back. I've already removed it from the talk page, but you need to state, unequivocally, that you retract the comment, and that you will do better. This is a collaborative environment, people are volunteers here, many are doing the best they can with limited time and resources, and no none needs to be talked to in that way. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• So right now you're probably wondering what you can possibly do to get out of this situation. You might be surprised to see me posting here, because we disagreed strongly about your edits. But I'm not here to gloat or demand anything. I want to help you, because I believe you want to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, and you feel very strongly about bringing to light the stories of those who have been marginalized throughout history. This is a valuable perspective to bring to Wikipedia—but there's a right way and a wrong way to contribute, and the reason you're currently blocked is because you ignored some important principles. You can make this right and get back to work making Wikipedia a better and more inclusive encyclopedia. Here's how:

Apologize to the people you were arguing with through edit summaries and talk pages this last week. None of them were calling you an idiot, inhuman, or discussing other people being raped—I know you weren't wishing it on anyone, but you shouldn't even imply that it would improve someone's perspective. Nobody's saying you have to agree with their opinions, but you should respect the fact that their opinion differs from yours. It's okay to try to persuade other people, but at a certain point you have to accept the fact that they may not be persuadable.

Agree to observe the policies that make it possible to build the encyclopedia together. Among them: when other editors disagree with your edits, go to the article's talk page and try to find common ground with them. Wikipedia:Consensus will help you understand how this process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about finding points of agreement, even though sometimes you're just not going to be able to achieve consensus. Don't assume that people who disagree with you just don't understand your point, or lack basic human feeling. There's usually another reason, especially if several people are disagreeing with you. Remember to keep things civil: see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That's the biggest reason behind the indefinite block here.

Lastly, know when to stop when you and other editors just can't agree on what to do with an edit: Wikipedia has a bright-line rule to help editors know when to give up—not necessarily forever, but until they've talked things out and made some progress. It's called the three-revert rule, and breaking off an edit war before it gets beyond this point is a good way to keep out of trouble. Continuing to re-revert edits after multiple other editors were reverting them for the reasons discussed on the Endymion talk page is why you were warned and blocked in the first place.

If you show that you're willing to apologize to the people you were attacking, to review the policies that I mentioned and follow them moving forward, then you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. I'm not an admin, so I can't lift the ban myself, but Drmies is, and he'd be someone you could talk to. We still have a disagreement over Endymion and Selene and potentially other figures in classical mythology—but we need to keep discussing it if we're going to achieve consensus for or against the edits you want to make. If you don't participate collaboratively in the discussion—that is, without personal insults, just explaining and listening to what other people are saying—then there probably won't be consensus for the edits you want to make, here or in other articles that involve the same issues. It may be that even with a calm and reasoned discussion, there won't be consensus for the edits you want to make. And if that's the case, you just don't get to make those changes. That's just how Wikipedia is supposed to work—otherwise it would be impossible for articles to be relatively stable between major revisions. Wishing you luck, P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)