User talk:Cortador
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.
If you want to know more about a specific subject,Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.
Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMagedoom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magedoom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.TTN (talk)11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedExtra Ordinary (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThe Wind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)12:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 | Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your recent editing history atList of video games notable for negative reception shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.JOEBRO6420:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --ferret (talk)12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] | Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, I'mDenniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toNebelwerfer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse or theHelp desk.if you see something to discuss take it to talk but do not introduce fals information/translation just because you don't know german termsDenniss (talk)10:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). Thank you.Denniss (talk)17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you. —Czello(music)08:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk)16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.
If you reinstate disputed material about living people without a consensus (in violation ofWP:BLPRESTORE), you may betopic banned from editing about living people, orblocked from editing. It does not matter whether this is done using three or four reverts; two are sufficient and evenone can be a policy violation.~ ToBeFree (talk)16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not reinstate disputed material. The disputed material was an unqualified statement that Johnson has seven children (and was tagged as such), despite multiple reliable sources stating that he has "at least" seven children. The disputed material was reinstated byUser:DeFacto andUser:CzelloCortador (talk)17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You were edit warring on that biography. The block is clearly necessary.PhilKnight (talk)18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBoris Johnson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cortador. My name is Marco Silva and I am a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed how much you contributed to the article aboutSultan Al Jaber. Is there any chance we can chat in private? I have a couple of questions for you about this article and about the editing work you have been doing. To be crystal clear: I am not looking for an interview, just an off-the-record chat. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a moment. Many thanks.MarcoSilvaUK (talk)14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi!" - Please: Use the Informations i gave, instead revert all generally, thankyou! I don't have the time & the knowledge to do the things here as you want, "sorry!". Gentle:Hungchaka (talk)17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misrepresent my posts, as you didhere. I was notcomplaining about
any sources, I was asking how you selected them, to help understand the weight to be applied to your use of them. --DeFacto (talk).20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DeFacto (talk).15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary includes a quite explicitassumption of bad faith. The editor already said their edit was based on a specific and expressed reasoning, but you directly imply that theirreal reasoning was something else "you not liking them
". You are a generally good editor and I do not wish to see you get zucked. Please take this as a friendly but vigorous encouragement to stop those kinds of comments, in ES or on talk, right away.Cambial—foliar❧12:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora @Cortador. Just want to say thanks again for restoring the edits I made to the page for theConservative Party (UK). As you can seehere, the user Czello left me a message threatening to block me, after I tried reaching out to him to get him to come to the talk page. Bit irritiating.Aubernas (talk)10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.
Note although this is a 3rr warning the page is (in fact) under 1RR, you have reverted more than once.Slatersteven (talk)12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My last word here, you have been warned, if you revert again I will report you.Slatersteven (talk)12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cortador, regarding this talk page discussion that you have started, could you add a proposal for specific wording to be added into the article? Having closed the previous discussion as without consensus, I believe it would lead to a more lasting outcome if specific text was proposed to be included in the article, which can then be approved or rejected by consensus. Thank you.Onetwothreeip (talk)21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inthis edit, you added a source[1] but the title you added in the "title=" parameter does not match the title actually used in the source.[2] Repeatedly doing this could be construed as disruptive. Please take care to accurately reflect the content and titles of sources in the references. Cheers.Cambial—foliar❧18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope you'll forgive me, I've struck your last !vote at AfD/Hohem as you'd already !voted delete. This isn't an attempt at suppressing your point of view. It's just that when people !vote several times, it gets harder for the closing admin to assess the consensus. Best wishes,Elemimele (talk)13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested athird opinion regarding the disagreement atTalk:Cook Partisan Voting IndexHirolovesswords (talk)19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, I know you have been given a contentious topics warning. Please avoid commenting on editors as you have been doing in our recent discussions. When you shift from commenting on my arguments to commenting on my understandings you are no longer WP:FOC.Springee (talk)12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I empathize with your positions here, and I see that we agree on certain issues. I think your time will be better served avoiding the back and forth with other editors. I can certainly relate to your frustrations, but sometimes the best thing to do is to disengage if you know it's not likely to have any effect on swaying opinion or increasing consensus. Let's focus on improving the Far right section and try to keep it condensed down to what is DUE, with a few short sentences. We have a good start, we just need to be patient and open minded. Cheers.DN (talk)20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick suggestion. I would not try to hold any other editor's hands and explain policies or walk them through justifications, at least not more than once. Sometimes it's OK to stop engaging if an editor clearly and simply can't or won't acknowledge things. Constantly going back and forth on tangents tends to distract from where the discussion is supposed to go. Focus on your arguments and which sources say what, and how it affects the article. Avoid discussions that tend to end up inWP:BATTLE andWP:LAWYER territory. Not that you are doing anything wrong, I also struggle with these issues myself, but I wanted to let you know that sort of thing happens, and can create unnecessary stress. I like to remind myself I do not control consensus, I simply abide by it. Cheers.DN (talk)23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag isn't appropriate so there's nothing to replace it with. If you disagree, fine, but take it to the talk page and/or bring in an RfC &c. to show me how wrong I am. In any case, if there's an issue with any fact in the article, tag that but itis cited, so "needs cites" is definitely the wrong template for whatever the problem is you see.
(ForMount Qianliyan, btw, yeah, fair enough. There are cites on that article but, yeah, they should be replaced with a higher quality source so the template fits, kinda. For Qianliyan Island, no, they're journalistic and scholarly sources already and there's no actual problem with them as far as I can see. You're welcome to explain the issue on the talk page, ofc.) — LlywelynII17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.
Despite the scary tag, I posted there already that I saw you finally engaging on the talk page. Hopefully you keep things there and that whole bit blows over. — LlywelynII18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atGinni Thomas shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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. – Muboshgu (talk)15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Czello(music)21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]Hi @Cortador, I am a Conflict of Interest editor who has made a request atTalk:Sultan Al Jaber where you have previously weighed in on other discussions. I wondered if you might like to assess the changes I have proposed? Thank you in advance!Dedemocha (talk)15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 | The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For your work going throughTommy Tallarico and finding sources/removing unsourced items, that task is much appreciated!Alyo(chat·edits)15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
You're in media:[5][6]Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atRepublican Party (United States) shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.ToaNidhiki0514:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cortador. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:[9],[10],[11]. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formalWP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league,ONE Championship, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors?Brucemyboy1212 (talk)15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike this comment as it violates CIVIL[12].Springee (talk)03:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of violatingbold, revert, discuss by continuing to revert your contested edit back (see:edit warring), you giveme a template warning (don't template the regulars) to warn me about edit warring? Dude. You're the one who started this.ToaNidhiki0520:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onDemocratic Party (United States). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk)22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cortador,I saw that you AfD'dWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea on 20 October. You stated thatAdding to this: depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominateList of wars involving South Korea as well. However, this the arguments for and against that will pretty much be the same as the ones here, I didn't want to split the debate, and just nominated this page for now. That seems a good idea. It was indeed deleted on 3 November, and redirected toList of wars involving Korea#North Korea afterwards. Are you planning on nominatingList of wars involving South Korea for deletion / redirect toList of wars involving Korea#South Korea next? If not, I'll be happy to do it in your stead if you prefer. Cheers,NLeeuw (talk)15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I agree with TFD on is that there's altogether too much willingness to source social science, politics and humanities topics to journalists rather than academics on this website and it's something we should all be working to improve.
A tool that has been ofgreat help (as well as some personal satisfaction) to use is the Wikipedia Library, which provides access to a very large proportion of academic journals. Check it out.[13]Simonm223 (talk)18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may need to update your template/macro with the current year, as you've posted this notice on someone's profile with the date of yesteryear.
User_talk:King_Lobclaw#c-Cortador-20250213125900-February_2024_ANI_notificationJeroen52 (talk)03:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBa'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRadical left.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, please reviewWP:OVERCITE. It’d be better to list sources in the RfC. Piling one descriptor makes it look like you’re trying to make the case that one is more due for the infobox than the others, when in reality we could pile all of them with 10+ sources. ThanksKowal2701 (talk)10:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are requested to join thisAfD discussion.BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)12:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can address my question fromUser_talk:Jonas1015119#Talk:Hasan_Piker, "What would convince you that there are article-wide problems with the sources, and with the POV presented?" --Hipal (talk)21:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of anArbitration Committee decision. The thread isCortador. Thank you. --Hipal (talk)17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reverting youhere. The conversation clearly had more of a consensus formed than I initially realised, and I understand there is aWP:STICK issue with another user I missed the context of. —Czello(music)08:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not removemaintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did toHasan Piker, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has beenreverted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk)16:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to removemaintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did atHasan Piker, you may beblocked from editing. --Hipal (talk)23:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.[14] --Hipal (talk)23:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you keep removing the "serial killer" label from theKermit Gosnell article, claiming that the article does not cover the serial-killer label enough. I would like to direct you to the article onJeffrey Dahmer, as an example, which is also an article that only mentions "serial killer" in a section on television/movie coverage. The term "serial killer" is simply defined as and applied to people who have killed at least 3 people in separate instances. Please stop continuously removing the label when you haven't even opened up a discussion on the talk page of the article before doing so.DocZach (talk)06:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at2025 US Open (tennis) shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war. Anedit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on an page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use thetalk page to work toward creating a version of the page that representsconsensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is tostop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detailhow this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard, or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection while the discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in beingblocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editormust not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts on the page.Fyunck(click) (talk)08:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk)20:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do notremove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has beenreverted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk)19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]