Jump to content

User talk:Emiya1980

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emiya1980 (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 19 August 2024 (→August 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Laird Bell.jpeg

Notice

The file File:Laird Bell.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

'Unable to verify whether publication is allowed by source website.'

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Edwin Pauley, Wang-Shih-chieh, and General Chu Shih-ming during the U.S. Reparations tour.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Edwin Pauley, Wang-Shih-chieh, and General Chu Shih-ming during the U.S. Reparations tour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stephen A.D. Greaves.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stephen A.D. Greaves.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller family

Thank you for your additions to Rockefeller family. I have a few concerns.

First, you have added non-notable names and companies to the embedded lists, such at Thomas M. Debevoise. My concern is that by doing this, the list is now wide open for the addition of anyone ever associated with the family (such as their auto mechanics and butlers). If it is crucial that non-notable names be listed, perhaps a short text can be included explaining why this person needs mentioning.

Second, please do not add external links to the body of the article, per WP:EL. An example would be "Arbor Acre Farms Inc.".

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 I'll be sure to remove the external links from the article's body. By "non-notable names", I assume you're referring to people who don't have their own article on wikipedia. If that's the case, I have no problem excluding them if I cannot show how they played a significant role in advancing the family's interests. However, things get a bit murkier when applying this rationale to companies. There are a large number of well-capitalized businesses with a national/global market for their products or services which (for whatever reason) don't have their own articles. As long as the Rockefeller family owned them in whole or in part over a substantial period of time, I don't see why they should not be listed. Emiya1980 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I agree companies are more complicated, and should be included. Perhaps just a note explaining the connection to the family. Thank you again for your hard work. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Andrei Pavlovich Kirilenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Andrei Pavlovich Kirilenko.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert E. Gross.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robert E. Gross.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 9 November 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaled images

Heads up per your "better quality image of subject" update of the Yuri Andropov article that the Wikipedia manual of style is presently against the use of AI to add detail to historical images - the original if slightly blurry photo from the 1980s is considered to be more useful here. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing images.) Belbury (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Easy CSS image crop}}

Don't use this in articles yet (it's a work in progress), but I'm trying to make things a little easier. This requires some information {{CSS image crop}} doesn't - the original image's width and height (so that it knows how tall the scaled-down image it's cropping from is) - but I think it's easier to use. For the cost of slightly more complex math in the template, I could put the crops left right top and bottom in terms of percentages, but I'm not sure if that's easier. It WOULD make scaling a lot easier.

Anyway, if you want to give your thoughts, I'm trying to develop it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. If it's about Theodore Roosevelt, I'm happy about how things look now. Are you suggesting making further changes?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just... you've played with the template used in Roosevelt, so you know it's maybe a bit hard to understand. I'd like to make it so that if we ever wanted to crop another image, anyone could adjust it easily, and understand what they were doing. I'm doing Taft next, you know (although I'm thinking of changing the base image there). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I'm not the best person to speak with about template design on Wikipedia. I just made some tweaks which I thought would be conducive to obtaining the best outcome in the Theodore Roosevelt article. However, before you plan on making changes to William Howard Taft, I would recommend getting consensus of editors in advance.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Message already on the talk page. Though if I see nothing in a week... just doing it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2024

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have made unnecessary and borderline vandalizing edits to AT&T and IBM. Please don't use undocumented perimeters to show key people. Also, do not change founding dates without citing sources. WiinterU (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further discovery, there were more articles. WiinterU (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WiinterU: I have no problem providing citations for founding dates. With that being said, you are the only person who takes issue with my decision to modify the infobox to include key people in the company's history. What one deems unnecessary is subjective. If you can't point to an Wikipedia guideline corroborating your claims about "bordlerline vandalism", I redirect you to the page, Assume good faith.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Fisher Baker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railroad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murdoch family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page News Corp..

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker family moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Crocker family. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crocker family has been accepted

Crocker family, 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.

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!

CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helmuth von Moltke

I have just looked at your recent edits on this. Sorry if I am now telling you to do things that you know very well but it is customary to give a reason for your edits such as "further details added with a source" or " I think this reads better" or "Typo". I think the Wikipedia guidance is that the only time you need not do this is when you revert a piece of vandalism. The edits themselves mostly look OK and you have added some sources, which is great, however I'm not sure about the one that uses "ultimately". It looks a bit long but I am not going to alter it. Also can you tell me why you call the "general staff" the "great general staff." It may be a good edit or not-I don't know- it may depend on the reasons. Spinney Hill (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the word "ultimately" per your suggestion. The "Great General Staff" is the official term for the German General Staff. It says so in the Wikipedia article.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

Hello,

Regarding the names of the founders of a company, Wikipedia must follow reliable sources, extrapolations such as [1][2] are considered original research and should be avoided.

Same goes for these other edits, I didn't check all of them but WP:TRUTH might be worth a read.

Kind regards. Thibaut (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Emiya1980. Thank you for your work on Oka Takazumi. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Emiya1980. Thank you for your work on Gould family. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rothschild banking family of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nathan Rothschild.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Leonid Brezhnev 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. Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

You were quick. I tried to edit the infobox as soon as I closed the RFC, and discovered that you had already edited the infobox in accordance with the close of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Starr image

Can I ask what's wrong with the 2019 image of Starr? It's closer, higher quality, and more recent. Why do you keep reverting to an image thats over 12 years old when we have newer and better ones? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Talk:Benito Mussolin

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Benito Mussolini 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. Nemov (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You've been around a while so I won't template you, but I will warn you about edit warring and ownership over at Talk:Benito Mussolini. I count 5 reverts in just over 24 hours: [3][4][5][6][7] (four of those strictly within the 24 hour window). Some of that rhetoric is borderline uncivil as well. Please save us both some time and take a step back, because your next revert will land you at WP:3RRN. And yes, to answer your question, I do care about overall collegiality on contentious topics like this more than I do about the specific content dispute at hand. Generalrelative (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is noted with regards to the reverts. That being said, explain to me why Nemov gets a pass for uncivil accusations about me wasting other editors' time with this Rfc and others.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative Another example of Nemov's civility. [8]Emiya1980 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GR is, to my knowledge, not an administrator. If you think users are in violation of WP policy, you should bring them to a noticeboard. And please don’t criticize fellow editors based on what they choose to give their time to. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitled to whatever priorities they want. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede your point if you are referring to my prior post on GR's talk page. However, if another editor openly accuses me in the middle of an Rfc of wasting others' time while trying to get concrete evidence of a consensus (or lack thereof) out in the open, I take offense to that and am inclined to respond in kind.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have in the past been warned for making personal attacks and other types of WP:TALKNO violations wrt image RfCs you've started. This latest comment is a highly inappropriate personalization of a policy-based discussion. I encourage you to self-revert. Continuing this pattern of misbehavior may result in loss of editing privileges, including I presume a ban on initiating image RfCs in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characterize my statement however you want. It doesn't make it any less true. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative Assuming you're referring to the current version of that comment as it now appears on Hermann Göring's talk page. If not, it has already been edited to more truthfully reflect your conduct on the Mussolini Rfc thread. That being said, I do find it rather hypocritical that you ONCE AGAIN call me out for personal attacks while giving Nemov a free pass to disparage me for supposedly wasting other editors' time. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you one more time to stop doing mass pings like this on RfCs you've started. I'm not aware of any other editor who does this. If folks are already involved in an ongoing discussion, or if they !voted in a past RfC on the same matter, it's fine to ping them, but posts like the one I just linked give the appearance that you are grubbing for support when an RfC doesn't appear to be going your way. That is, it appears to be a form of WP:CANVASSING. You've been warned about excessive and disruptive pinging in the past. I strongly encourage you to stop doing this. Generalrelative (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review Wikipedia's page regarding canvassing in more detail. Said page specifies that canvassing does not arise when notifying editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article in question. The editors whom I've notified are not only listed among the top 20 based on number of edits to the article but have contributed to the page within the past 3 years (thereby showing their continued interest in it). Issuing notices to a mere 8 editors who fit the aforementioned criteria hardly qualifies as indiscriminate spamming. Moreover, based on my reading of the page, canvassing is mainly an issue when the notifications are directed to a particularly group of editors who are expected to vote the same way as the poster. I have no guarantee that the editors I've notified will support my position. On the contrary, there is at least one editor whom I am quite certain will vote in favor of the consensus. Furthermore, the message I have written next to the pings is completely neutral in that it does not seek to sway editors to vote one way or the other. How or whether they decide to contribute to the RFC is entirely up to them. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Dowling.jpeg

Hello!

I noticed this file is both non-free and licensed GFDL 1-2. It is correct that it may be licensed GFDL on openwaterpedia but that is only relevant if whoever uploaded the file to openwaterpedia is the copyright holder. There is no information that back up the claim about GFDL so I do not think we can add that license.

So unless you know more about the file I think the license tag for GFDL should be removed. --MGA73 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sfn reference in White Shirts Society

Hi, in this edit to White Shirts Society you added an sfn reference to "Lee 2006, p. 138" but did not define the source. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could add the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@seefooddiet Thought you should see this. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling attention to this thread

For other people reading this talk page, please give this talk page a read Talk:White Shirts Society. I feel that the way this user engaged with me (toobigtokale, 211.43.120.242) was consistently avoidably abrasive. Myself and another user asked them to reflect or dial it back, and they refused.

While I think their feedback contained valid concerns, I don't think they engage with others healthily. Looking at this talk page now, there's clearly further evidence of this behavior elsewhere. seefooddiet (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seefooddiet Wow, overreaction much? If I recall, I did not call you any insulting names or accuse you of having any malicious intent for what you were writing. Just because you don't like being asked to devote more effort to improve your work does not give you the right to threaten me on my talk page. Need I remind you that you did not have a decisive consensus on the Rfc when I decided to accommodate you.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like being asked to devote more effort to improve your work blatant mischaracterization of why I was upset. [9][10][11][12]
I forgot the scope of the conversation once and apologized after you called me out, that's hardly a courtesy or accommodation. Edit: misinterpreted comment; also the point of an RFC is not to drag it on, it's to resolve a concern lol. That's the basic function of an RFC and basic polite behavior, not some grace that one extends.
I did not threaten you in this post. If you mean in the edit comment [13], it's because you initially deleted my post in violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS; I wasn't aware that you quickly reverted your own deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your article had glaringly obvious flaws which I pointed out and compelled you to correct by posting "neutrality" and "fringe" tags. Get over it. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying controlling your tone while delivering (indeed, valid) feedback is on you. There's a reason I posted this thread on your talk page; others need to see what you're doubling on right now. This thread is not flattering to you. seefooddiet (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly trying to harass me into apologizing for upsetting you with my prior comments. Regardless of the issues you have with me, such behavior is not looked on positively in Wikipedia. If you want to complain about my behavior to an administrator, that is your right. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting these harassing posts on my wall. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HUSH isn't valid here. I'd already written off an apology. Talk pages serve as logs, and I'm logging a valid concern. If you think the concern is not valid, I welcome you to go administrators as well.
I'm done posting. The point has been made, for others to see. seefooddiet (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:HUSH is VERY on-point here.
"User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space."
Explicitly calling on visitors to my talk page to take note not only of my problems with you but interactions with other editors that have NOTHING to do with you clearly falls within the meaning of user-space harassment. I repeat: If you have an issue with me, go to an administrator. Otherwise, get off my talk page. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fair enough. I'm gone. seefooddiet (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not showing you civility in the talk page for the White Shirts Society. Notwithstanding said apology, how you have responded here is likewise completely out of line. I urge you to reflect on this the next time you consider launching some scorched-earth policy in retaliation for someone hurting your feelings. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I apologize too for the post. Let's move past this; productive edits were made, which is the important thing. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your current spree of flooding WP talk pages with links to RfC on topics of hardly any relevance to those articles is not helpful and need to stop. Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz That depends on whether you’re willing to offer criteria regarding which articles are outside the scope of the RFCs. According to Wikipedia’s policies on publicizing an Rfc , it is permissible to post Rfc notices on “closely related articles” . I concede that some pages which I’ve posted such tags on may not be closely related to the articles which the Rfc pertains. Others, however, I think are. If you are sincere in your desire to inform me on how to narrowly tailor my approach in a manner which is beneficial to Wikipedia, I’ll listen. However, if this post is just designed to intimidate me into halting tags on ALL related talk pages in the hopes that the Rfc proposals die on the vine , then I’ll simply chalk your post up to status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emiya1980&oldid=1241040386"