User talk:IntrepidContributor

This is IntrepidContributor's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zaborona (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please write a proper article that indicates why the topic is notable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zaborona and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zaborona, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

👋👋 Thanks for your edits. 666hopedieslast (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in WP:3RR removed this source:

[1]

look at talk. I would remove this source. 666hopedieslast (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your old account?

What is your old account? You probably need to inform the admins (not sure of the procedure) so as not to be blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Хто ти? Чому ви хочете знати мої дані? Ви з Донецька чи Луганська? IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to inform you of the rules here. If you truly don't have access to your old account, you should inform the admins so that there is no risk of being blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but which rule is that? I haven't even used my old account in years. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCKLEGIT. From WP's standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you've used your old account recently or not - if you don't identify it, there's always the chance you'll be blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it. Do you think there is anything illegitimate about my account? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I think isn't really at issue here. Someone else might.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was anything wrong until I read these evasive non-answers. Something is definitely up. Wes sideman (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered that I have no connection to the account you are pursuing. I have nothing to hide and there are no rules requiring me to answer you. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... Do you have nothing to hide or are you hiding your former account because no rule requires you to answer the question? Those two are mutually exclusive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hiding my account. I have done nothing wrong and you are not administrators so you have no business here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a previous account and you aren't disclosing it, you are doing something wrong.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules. I haven't even logged into my old account in years. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the rule you're referring to?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its written in WP:SOCKLEGIT as a clean start. My old account was mostly Russian contributions and no blocks. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anatoly Levin-Utkin (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JBW was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

To be considered notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person needs to have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable publications unconnectted to that person.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anatoly Levin-Utkin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anatoly Levin-Utkin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JBW (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IntrepidContributor! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JBW (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppet report

ha ha

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/666hopedieslast 666hopedieslast (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Patrick Lancaster. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Do not remove maintenance templates without first resolving the issues. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone, Please consider starting a discussion on the talk page or the article you would like to append unsightly tags to. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

They are rather tricky. See Help:Notifications. You need to either link the username you wish to notify (ping) [[user:Adakikio]], {{u|Adakikio}} or use a notification template such as {{ping}} or one of its many aliases {{yo}} or {{reply to}}. The notification template has the advantage of notifying multiple users. Example: {{yo|Adakikio|Netherzone|IntrepidContributor}}. In the same save, you must have your signature ~~~~ Both must be saved at the same time. You should see the bell icon at the top of your page turn red which when clicked will drop down with a message stating the ping was successful. You will likely need to refresh the page or open another page to see the red bell. If it doesn't work, see suggests at the top of the help page. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adakiko thanks. I seen this code before but forgot. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lancaster

Are there more RS that describe him as a purveyor of disinformation and propaganda? Might be good to include others. One seems marginal for this claim. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best RS that describe him as a purveyor of disinformation and propaganda is this Zabrona article, but there was a very strange debate about it [2] [3], and I do not want to go back into that dispute. I think the consensus is that it is reliable and you can add it to the page if you want. Beware you may be accused of being a sock. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

If you are going to use peoples non participation in a discussion as evidence against them, it might be a good idea if you notified them about said discussion before doing so. Not everyone watches every single page on Wikipedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't submit any complaints that required evidence of misconduct. I asked the people (Ermenrich and Rosguill) who didn't participate to participate and I pinged them on the article chat page [4]. I want to avoid further waste of volunteer time on this. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About 15 minutes before you posted this "Neither Ermenrich or Rosguill participated in the discussion before reverting this editor." which is incorrect as the edit war block was the day before (thus the revert must have been). Nor are they required to participate, as a revert is enough to express dissent. Also Ermenrich did participate [[5]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich participated only by stating that a consensus wasn't reached, which does not constitute participation in the discussion. To date, neither Ermenrich or Rosguill have participated in the discussion as BRD requires. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiona Hill. 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) 09:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Penjor has been accepted

Penjor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—Caorongjin 💬 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

If I see anything like this again I will block your account. Thank you for understanding. Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I'm not seeing any impersonation in this diff. Perhaps ErnestKrause misread this diff, or maybe they linked the wrong diff and impersonation occurred in a different one? In the linked diff, IntrepidContributor appears to revert ErnestKrause's closure of the discussion and move Ernest's closure opinion into the discussion itself so that it's not lost. Ernest's signature is kept and his comment isn't refactored. Although the discussion's initial proposal garnered little support it did instigate conversation and it seems as though a productive idea might have come out of it, nobody has restored the closure, so Intrepid's re-opening of the thread looks reasonable to me. Pinging Ermenrich as a courtesy as I see this was discussed on their talk page initially. Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I probably also misread the diff, without an appropriate edit summery it looks to me like impersonation. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter I can understand why it looked bad as impersonation, but why did you check it more thoroughly and give a warning first? Did I say something somewhere else you didn't like? IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what else I should have checked? If someone would undo my close and post the close to the discussion adding my signature I would probably go straight to ANI. Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Why did you threaten administrator action without first warning me? Second question, why aren't you apologising or providing guidance to me about edit summaries even though you acknowledge to Jr8825 that you misread my intention? IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that your action was completely inappropriate? Yes or no answer, please. Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Threatening by administrator action" is in fact a warning. Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not answering my question. Given that I had prepared a carefully worded response of my own, my revert of Ernest's hasty Wikipedia:Non-admin closure was entirely appropriate. Your assertion that your threat to use administrator action was "in fact" a warning, doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially since you admitted above that you misread my intention. Please either answer my initial question or apologise for threatening to block me based on your misreading of my edit, otherwise I will file a complaint about your conduct here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File a complaint. Your action was inappropriate. My warning stands. Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote from the policy which states that undoing a hasty non-admin closure is "inappropriate"? IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not just undoing a non-admin closure (which I have no opinion about). This was moving somebody else's comment to the discussion it was not written for, pretending that the comment was in fact for the discussion and not for the closing. Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So should I have just deleted the comment entirely? Can you link to the policy that stipulates that and justifies your threats of administrator action without warning? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know what to do you should ASK first, this is what the talk pages are about In this case, crossing out would be probably sufficient. Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer either questions in my last two replies. I will number and repeat the questions here for the sake of brevity.

1: Can you quote from the policy which states that undoing a hasty non-admin closure is "inappropriate"?

2: Does this policy stipulate if/how an editor should delete or move another editor's attempted close? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you do not seem to be listening to me and instead you are talking to yourself. Have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to quote the relevant policy and instead prefer your own "explanation". I have no choice but to file a complaint about your conduct. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a choice - to listen to what I was telling you, or to read the policies. You prefer to complain instead. It is your choice, for which you will bear your responsibility. Good luck. Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend arbitration though, zero chances to succeed and will take a lot of time. Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question. Did I say something somewhere you didn't like that prompted your threat of administrator action without a warning? I will file an arbitration complaint because I found both your and Bbb23's conduct in the topic area to be detrimental to editor cooperation and I will seek measures to prevent unwarranted administrator intervention in content disputes. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you what and where you file, I just explained to you what is going to happen. I am not sure why you are repeating "threat without a warning" even though I explained to you already that what you call "threat" was in fact a warning. Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that prior to filing an arbitration complaint, I requested here an apology and clarification on which policy justified your threat as per my action. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I provided sufficient explanations, but you are not interested in listening. Well, if you want to learn in a hard way what the arbitration actually is you are welcome to go forward. Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to link to the policy you say made my revert inappropriate. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Noticeboard

Your edit account is currently under discussion on Noticeboard here: [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing an archive properly

Hi. I haven't read any of the above except for clicking the first diff, so this note is limited to that only. But a note for future reference: whenever you undo an archive and move the closing summary to the bottom as normal comment, which you generally shouldn't do, you need to ensure that it is made clear that it was you who did that. Like so: <other user's comment> → Archive undone and closing summary moved. [your sig] Thanks. El_C 00:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. You have breached 3RR in this quest to add a cn tag to a statement that has thousand of sources. Please self-revert. CMD (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of edit warring. It is just a Citation Needed tag. The burden is on the claimant. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:IntrepidContributor reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: ). Thank you. CMD (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OPEC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kirby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anatoly Levin-Utkin has been accepted

Anatoly Levin-Utkin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Modussiccandi (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Musk

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 01:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you add the content again without gaining consensus, I will report you to ANI. Please, let's discuss and follow BRD. You've been blocked for edit warring before, so you should know the drill. ~ HAL333 01:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war. I added it twice, you deleted it twice. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ HAL333 07:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this as no violation, but only because at the time of your last, piecemeal revert, consensus on the talk page really hadn't been reached. I now believe there is consensus against going into that level of detail ... it seems three editors in the discussion take that position and no one has really taken your side.

So, with that in mind, do not restore that section unless further discussion comes to the opposite conclusion, or (more likely IMO) one of the conditions mentioned in the discussion as warranting more extensive discussion in the article, i.e. Musk getting prosecuted under the Logan Act, comes to pass. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the consensus on the talk page. I don't want to have to bring you to ANI again. ~ HAL333 07:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors in the talk page discussions [7] [8] (including yourself [9]) are in favour of removing this statement. Your reinstatement of the statement, and warning me of edit warring, looks like personalisation of a dispute. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Zaborona

Hello, IntrepidContributor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zaborona, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Drone warfare during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hello, IntrepidContributor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Drone warfare during the Russo-Ukrainian War, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for clarification

The request for clarification Should disputed content be left in a BLP while discussion is ongoing? has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Krusik arms export scandal

Hello, IntrepidContributor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Krusik arms export scandal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Drone warfare during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hello, IntrepidContributor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Drone warfare during the Russo-Ukrainian War".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Krusik arms export scandal

Hello, IntrepidContributor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Krusik arms export scandal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Continuity-of-society

Hello, IntrepidContributor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Continuity-of-society, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

starship .paint (RUN) 15:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You've violated 1RR on Talk:Gaza genocide. Please self-revert. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR doesn't apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. Please refrain from deleting editors talk page contributions you don't agree with. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly disruptive behavior. Withdraw the RM, or AE, your choice. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They've chosen AE. I'll go file the paperwork. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is IntrepidContributor. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS

If you ping someone from a discussion to another discussion you cannot selectively exclude other editors. This is your only warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning on edit warring

Do not edit war, even on talk pages, and even over internal processes. If you believe there was a violation of TPG or other disruptive editing bring it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. This warning is a result of this AE report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]