User talk:The New Classic

Welcome!

Hello, The New Classic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming Blake images

especially to the top of articles. They are rarely the most suitable, and at Last Judgement you repeated one that was already in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got thanked by User:Groupiscule, so I will put the Cain and Abel one back.The New Classic (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod. These are great artistic images, but not great lead images on an encyclopedia. I'm afraid in ~~each~~ some of the cases I've seen, the existing lead image has been the better choice. The lead image is supposed to be something very recognizable, and there is a reason why we're using the images that we are (and that is also a reason not to change them on a whim like this). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me soften that up a bit: In some cases these additions have actually been good in my opinion. Other editors should not mass-revert them all, but discuss individually. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the ones where the image seemed to work ok, but these were the minority. Some I moved down.Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting...

The proper way to handle being reverted is not to reinsert the image but to go to the talk page and discuss. See WP:BRD. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OkayThe New Classic (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guysThe New Classic (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jesus in Christianity. 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cain and Abel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at the talk page you can see that a consensus ha salread been esablished.The New Classic (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which has no effect on [[WP:3RR]. Even if an editor is obviously right, the rule holds. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, an agreement was formed. But whatever.The New Classic (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus or agreement was reached. One editor half-agreed with you, two disagreed (talk and article edit summaries). Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't count the votes, and no, groupiscule did not "half-agree" with me on this issue, he agreed with me but could not fathom my urgency and haste. Couldn't you see that? Also, among thos eoarticipating on the talk page, two editors agreed with putting the picture in, and only you disagreed.The New Classic (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANd even if we count the vote s(which would be against the rules), the mage should still be put back. Two editors agrre to it, and only you oppose it. Edit summaries do not count as discussion, and even if we make an exception, there is no evidence that he is against putting the picture in-if anything, he reverted me out of enforcing Wikipedia policy, not out of any disagreements.The New Classic (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is there, just not at the top. I've explained why. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Library, May 2017

Hi, thanks for your edits. But as the images you added were not clear, i had to undo your edits. Thanks again, and happy editing. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Carl Benjamin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not exceed 3RR. I made 3 reverts, and so have you. The amount of edits is not what determines a revert. See WP:BRD, and keep in mind that you can be, and are, edit warring even without exceeding 3RR. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore unsourced material without adding a source

WP:BURDEN states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." This is part of our policy at WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Sutherland Springs church shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mr X 22:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the talk page explaining my self.The New Classic (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but you still can't edit war. At this point, I'm pretty sure you are well past WP:3RR. Please use the talk page to convince other editors that your content is better than what is already in the article and it will be added by someone.- Mr X 22:19, 8 November 2017 (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:The_New_Classic reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - Mr X 22:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The New Classic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image, as you did at Physical Strength. Not every article needs classical artwork, nor is classical artwork always the best for a given page. HCA (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there like a policy for this?The New Classic (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's called "disruptive editing". If you genuinely think a given picture is better than the current one, then ask; that's what we have talk pages for. Your persistent artwork additions without regard for any other factor are essentially a graphical version of WP:AXE. HCA (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]