Emiya1980

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

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

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

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. [1][2][3][4]

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 [5], 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 campaign 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

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 provide specific 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 there are pages where I’ve posted such tags that 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 that is beneficial to Wikipedia, I’ll listen. However, if this post is just designed to intimidate me into halting tags on ALL talk pages (related or not) 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

Hi, regarding this revert: please don't include image galleries (or images in another form) in RfC statements. The RfC statement should be neutral and brief. Although the brevity is not quantifiable in terms of how many words one image is equivalent to, the images certainly do occupy a not-insignificant amount of space. Adding images is not neutral (even if all of the options are presented): when the RfC statement gets copied to the RfC listings, they become attention-getters, shouting out "come to my RfC - it's better than the rest". Imagine if every RfC about "which image should we use" did this - the RfC listings would be crammed with them, and for this RfC that would be nine images of a, shall we say, controversial figure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you're making a bit if mess with your edits. I've fixed them, but going forward, I would suggest you ask first, I'm happy to help if I can. - wolf 03:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed this now;

Update on Hermann Goering

Thewolfchild I undid your removal of the "Final Thoughts" section. However, in the process, I ended up removing the statement you made. Thought you should know. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been fixed, and I copied everything here to make things easier. Should be ok now. - wolf 03:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thewolfchild Funny you should say that. For someone who wants to change the status quo, you seem to be doing all within your power to help the other side. You think you have the result in the bag when you clearly don't. Hence why Diannaa and Nemov (those most in favor of the status quo) are likewise pushing for the thread to be closed. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not pushing anything. I just noted that a request for closure has been filed, so that no one mistakenly files a duplicate request. You don't know I am most in favor of the status quo. Please don't make such comments that assume you know what I or anyone else is thinking or what anyone's motivations might be. Thanks — Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: I don't need to make assumptions to know that you are in favor of the status quo. You've said as much in the Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's when you said "those most in favor" - making the assumption that I care more deeply about the outcome than anyone else. — Diannaa (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild: Moreover, you have yet to point to a policy which forbids how I've used the subheader. If you can't, you have no right to undo my posts. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Hi again. About the personal subheading you keep adding to your comment; we don't really do that, as we shouldn't be drawing attention to any specific comment, nor appear to be favouring it. Also, there's just no need for a sub-heading there, we have generic sub-heading just above. Again, if you habe any queations, please ask here first, and I will help if I can. - wolf 03:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild: You did. Why can't I? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"I'm doing all in my power to help the other side?."...? This is a collaborative process. We try to work together for the benefit of the project. This "Us vs. them" mentality you're fostering is not helpful. Also, if you can't accept my explanation at face value (iow, if you think I'm lying), or if you can't see the logic for yourself, then gimme a bit and I will see if I can find a policy for you. In the meantime, can you chill out a little? There is no need for all the hostility.

And I did what...? - wolf 03:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild: Chill out a little? You are the one coming onto my talk page and getting on my case for what you perceive as disruptive edits with no evidence to back it up. Look at your own actions before you take issue with my tone. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) (#19) Also, can you slow down? I got four edit conflicts trying to post my laat reply. This was alsona problem at the RfC. You keep making edits, saving them, then going back and making changes. (eg: adding a ping like that won't work after like that. You need to go read WP:PING to learn to do it correctly. Also, you need to use the WP:PREVIEW function. Keep checking your posts with it, and only save them once you are certain they are written the way you want, and there are no typo's. This will make life easier for all your fellow editors. And lastly, there is no need to ping me. We are in a discussion, so I will either subscribe to this thread, or watch your page until we are done. Just some a few more helpful tips. (see? I'm not the bad guy here, I'm not against you.) - wolf 03:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe WP:TALKHEADER is what you're looking for. Though I'll say again that it's unfortunate you taken this rather standoffish demeanour. It's really not necessary. Also, it's too bad you couldn't accept my word on the matter, or see th3 logic in for yourself, not having needless, repeat subheaders (one or two neutral ones, typically "arbitrary break" can be added to lengthy RfCs and similar process discussions when they become lengthy, simply to help with navigating and editing. I tried adding one earler, a few times, and you kept removing it. No explanation from you, but no hostrility from me, I just let it go. But then I try adding another neutral section break, and you remove it again, only to then add your own personal header... even though no one else had one...? That didn't seem odd to you? Oh well, no biggie... live and let live, and all that. We should be done here now, but like I said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Have a nice day - wolf 03:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thewolfchild Would you be opposed to writing what you consider a neutral subheader above my comment about the Rfc being closed? That way new editors could be directed to the page while receiving notice that their contribution is needed sooner rather than later in order to more likely reach some form of consensus.Emiya1980 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, that would be that bias we spoke about earlier, and again why you don't see personal subheaders above other comments/!votes in the RfC. It the same reason we don't allow canvassing. It's best to just leave to the RfC gawds. Besides, people really supposed to post their !vote and that's it, (though sometimes people will add the odd extra commemt or two.) But if people go overboard, and post too many comments, or direct reponses to others comments, they can fall afoul of the badgering rules, and that you definitely don't want. - wolf 04:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And one item, please stop pinging me, here or at the RfC, as I explained, it's comoletely unneccessary. Thanks - wolf 04:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild: I warned you……Emiya1980 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good lord, get a grip. It's just a picture ffs. And for the 2nd time, stop pinging me. - wolf 00:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

True, it’s just a picture. However, I devoted a lot of time to that thread and I resent you going out of your way to help flush it down the toilet out of sheer stupidity. I also don’t appreciate your patronizing tone on my wall; least of all from someone who apparently can’t spell. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Emiya,

I noticed that you have several RFCs open. You probably didn't notice this box in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC when you were creating them, so I'm copying it here.

RFCs are "expensive" in terms of editors' time and attention. Please do not open any more RFCs until the current ones have been resolved. In the future, please avoid having more than two RFCs open at the same time. This means that if you start one RFC on August 1st, and another on August 15th, you probably shouldn't start any more RFCs for the rest of August (unless one of them closes early).

Also, if you make a suggestion on a talk page, and nobody opposes it after a week, you should consider treating that as a case of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus rather than as a situation requiring an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WhatamIdoing I'll agree to your proposal about not opening more than two Rfcs at a time. However, I'm calling BS on your argument that I should take lack of participation in a discussion as evidence of a sufficient consensus barring the need for an Rfc. As stated in the Wikipedia: Silence and consensus page you linked to in your prior post, "a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent." In response, I refer you to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I encourage you to read and follow the official editing guideline Wikipedia:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: Where you want me to read what exactly? Otherwise, I'm inclined to dismiss your argument as mere stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you should focus on the first three paragraphs, especially the part that says:

"Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia."

In English, the word stonewalling means that someone is refusing to talk to you or cooperate with you. Since I'm answering your questions and I'm encouraging you to do more editing, I'm not stonewalling you. Maybe someone else is?

This is  Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, you post a note about this on the talk page, and nobody objects after a reasonable length of time, so you edit the article to change the image.

This is  Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, so you edit the article. If (and only if) someone reverts your change or objects, editors start a discussion on the talk page, and the article ends up with whichever image editors choose in the discussion.

This is  Y good behavior: You want to change the image in an article, so you edit the article. If (and only if) someone reverts your change or objects, editors start a discussion on the talk page, but there are only two of you, and you can't agree, so one of you asks for a Wikipedia:Third opinion.

This is  N bad behavior: Someone tells you that you're not allowed to change images in articles unless you have a long discussion and/or an RFC first. The rule is that all editors are supposed to WP:Be bold in improving articles. The rule is not, and has never been, that you have to get written permission in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: I’ve just been reverted twice on Edward Heath. The second revert came after a majority of editors including myself have indicated on the talk page we are in favor a different lede image. Since you are opposed to me opening another Rfc, how do you recommend I proceed?Emiya1980 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: I’ve just confirmed with the reverting editor in question that an Rfc is the proper course of action. If I don’t hear otherwise from you in 24 hours, I plan on doing so.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you still have two RFCs open at the moment, then I recommend that you either wait, or that you let a different editor handle the RFC for that article.

BTW, every comment except yours in Talk:Edward Heath#Lead image was posted three years ago, so it's a poor example of WP:RFCBEFORE discussion. I've pinged the prior participants and the editor who reverted you to that thread, so you can hopefully have a productive discussion and come to an agreement without needing an RFC.

But if you do eventually decide that an RFC is needed, please:

• let someone else handle it, or
• follow the directions in the box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page and "check in on the RfC talk page for advice" (i.e., not your talk page, as it is not the RfC talk page).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll wait until all Rfcs in which I'm currently engaged are closed. If no consensus has been reached by that time on the discussion page for Edward Heath, then I'll proceed with a new Rfc. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply