User talk:MusenInvincible

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iran–Saudi Arabia relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iran protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply (March 2020)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you attempted at Talk:September 11 attacks and September 11 attacks, you may be blocked from editing. There is no consensus for your changes, please stop now. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My reply

When you said "without discussion or sources" and "There is no consensus for your changes" about linking terrorism with Islam, Have you read WP:TERRORIST and Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_27#Straw_Poll:_Islamic_terrorist?

Don't make reckless accusation without reading carefully — MusenInvincible (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON

Please stop going round in circles at Talk:September 11 attacks. Wikipedia is not an opinion outlet; Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Please consult it. I quote: "On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." See further down on the policy page for what counts as a reliable source. You are bludgeoning the discussion by insisting that the article should depart from Wikipedia policy, despite having it repeatedly explained to you both at article talk and here on your own talk.[1] Everybody has to follow our reliable sources policies — if it's your opinion that "I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics", you need to check that opinion at the door. If you insist on promulgating it and thereby flouting our policies, Wikipedia may not be for you. Please desist or you are likely to be blocked from Talk:September 11 attacks or topic banned from the topic September 11 attacks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

You argue that I don't follow the policy, but how about WP:TERRORIST policy and WP:NPOV, are you forgetting those ones? normal people would consider "Islamic terrorist" is more original research through editorial bias rather than factual "suicide hijackers" found on the incident. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not forgetting them (although WP:TERRORISM is not policy), but they don't support you. I quote WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. My bolding. It all comes down to reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

I don't talk about WikiProject, but the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels : Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

? Who's talking about a WikiProject? Not me. You referred to WP:TERRORISM and so did I. It's a shortcut that will take you to the text you quote. Do you understand me when I say WP:TERRORISM is not policy? It's a guideline. Scroll up from WP:TERRORISM to look at the top of the page. You're making it very difficult to talk to you. Please read my original message again and just stop. I'm not going to explain over and over. Bishonen | tålk 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Stop now. You do not have wp:consensus and no one who has responded has agreed with you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Should I stop against violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels? which also had generally been consensus but neglected, or you must stop now defending "reliable bias sources"

This is now a warning, continue with your wp:tenditious dragging out of that thread and I will report you to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To another user see mine WP:TERRORIST with yours WP:TERRORISM — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry, MusenInvincible. I meant to say WP:TERRORIST throughout — to refer back to what you had said. My invocation of a WikiProject was an accident. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Please stop this now, current consensus is against you. See Slatersteven above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just report it to WP:ANI, and ask others when there is bias report preferred above Manual of Style standard guideline. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

edit war

Please read wp:editwar and wp:3rr very very carefully. An edit war can take place over days and months.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read (or you won't never read) WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. It's not consensus, It's guideline and policy. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"... unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,". Stop the next time you try this I will report you. Get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't do that, cause I already report it — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI

I would advise you to ask for this to be closed, before there is a wp:boomerang. You are very much in the wrong here, as has been pointed out to you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it is wrong to follow the rules and standard guideline instead of keep follow who deviate it? Being blocked because of defending the application of policy on article is not normal. This is utterly unfair. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not following a rule and standard guideline. You are following your interpretation of a rule and standard guidline. There is a consensus that you are interpreting them incorrectly. You refuse to accept this consensus. The block, in particular its length, is meant to emphasize to you that the argument is over, and you cannot keep arguing until you've exhausted everyone else. Therefore, you need to either change your approach and accept consensus, or go somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WTW? the standard "Manual of Style" explains about how to write contentious label on a subject to use in-text attribution, but in the lead paragraph September 11 attacks, do you find where the 'in-text attribution' is?

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution WP:WTW

That's totally verbatim, not my preference. If they did change according this Manual of Style (or considering my alternative suggestions) I would accept it, and the discussion is closed. Moreover, the word terrorist in the article is redundant WP:REDUNDANCY (a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda) two same words in the same sentence, Of course everyone knows terrorist action is done by terrorist group (Is there no other term?)

Moreover, You are misinterpreting WP:IDHT when wrongdoing-ly applying ban to my account,

If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

— WP:IDHT

Who are "educating them about policies WP:NPOV and guidelines WP:WTW? they or I? When they did neglect my reminder about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, It's their mistakes not mine. Not just because of depending the consensus, cause consensus today could be changed in another day. So your ban is not fair, as harmful way to treat a user in solving the problem. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I really would advise you to drop this. If not you will lose talk page access and maybe earn a longer block. For gods sake listen, you have not so far and look what has happened.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong to uphold the WP:NPOV core and non-negotiable policy? Be calm down and logic that the Discussion is not over yet, I need more insights from other users who neutrally understand well about Wikipedia policy, not only force about consensus. If you cannot be collaborative,Wikipedia is not the right place for you. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I give up.Slatersteven (talk)

Time to close this "discussion". David J Johnson (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 II

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Bishonen | tålk 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not "your page" in the sense that you can put whatever you like on it, such as a ridiculous header above Floquenbeam's block. All Wikipedia pages are Wikipedia's. Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike

I have been working on 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for three hours. I was about to save then you made 3 edits. I carefully copied your edits into my changes, and you made more edits. Do me a favor please and wait a few minutes until I save my 3-hour edit, before you make any more changes. It would help me a lot! Cheers, —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind ... you had edited the version before I started; it was another editor who was editing at the same time I was. Fortunately, that editor seems to have paused anyway. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Main topic classifications

Please see WP:DIFFUSE and please stop adding articles to Category:Main topic classifications. The articles you have added are already included in subcategories. Medicine is already covered by Category:Medicine, which is already included in a subcategory of Category:Health, for example. Adding new categories to Main topic classifications would fundamentally mean a reorganization of Wikipedia's category scheme, which should be discussed first. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dagobert I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please preview, consolidate, and summarize

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Why are you removing legitamate categories from redirects? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I was removing the categories from redirects, because "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories" except for categorization templates (rcats) or maintenance categories and most of the redirects have overcategorization (with more than 3 categories/more than 7 categories) such as: Arnie_Cunningham, Martin_Brundle_(The_Fly), Ricky_Chapman also considering WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. but when reading redirects, the pages cannot show (even) single information can be verified (WP:VERIFY) from any kind of sources (Wikipedia core policy includes Verifiability); moreover most of the redirects are not Notable (WP:NOTABLE) enough (that pages could probably be deleted), otherwise each should have its own article, or at least stub quality, instead of only redirect.

Therefore, if the redirects would be improved to stub/article then it's okay to put more categories on them. But no otherwise. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RCAT describes a number of situations where redirects may be placed in article categories. You weren't being selective, though. Every single redirect that you edited, you removed all of the categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories" so I don't consider the redirects can be included in article categories because "redirects are not articles" thus (article) categories are not needed, unless there are 'redirect' categories (for blank information page).
For your accusation that my edits were disruptive, which point on WP:DISRUPTSIGNS policy that includes 'removing unverifiable categories on redirects whose content are blank'? — MusenInvincible (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Most" doesn't mean "All". If a redirect is for an organisation, but it points to an article about an individual connected with that organisation, categories specific to organisations belong on the redirect. As an example, take this edit - none of those categories can be said to apply to S. N. Goenka, the person; but all of them apply to Vipassana Research Institute, the organisation. So their inclusion on the redirect instead of on the person is sensible and logical. Another way of looking it is this: what was established in 1985 - Goenka or VRI? Clearly it can't be Goenka, who was born in 1924. See WP:INCOMPATIBLE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read my earlier explanation well, you would understand I did not mean to all but "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories with exceptions"
For your question, Imagine if someone looks for article of an institution Vipassana Research Institute but redirected to article of a person S. N. Goenka which talking a lot on person, but few information on the institution, Does that logic? and If you said Vipassana Research Institute was established in 1985, can you find sentence or sourced content on the redirected page S. N. Goenka indicating year when Goenka established? If you, or anyone else, would create a stub or short article of Vipassana Research Institute from redirect page, that's more logic to put some article categories BUT S. N. Goenka-Vipassana Research Institute example not from my edits you reverted anyway; and again, if the redirects would be improved to stub/article then it's okay (that everyone) to put more categories on them. — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ex nihilo

A difficult article to add to. It's giving me problems. I know far too little about metaphysics and logic, or modern cosmology (the "big bang"). If you want to join in, please do.Achar Sva (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Mandate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

West Bank editing.

Since West Bank is not available for editing because of vandalising, and you've edited it several times lately, I said maybe you're the right person to refer to. I'd aprecciate if if you check out the talk page at West Bank, specifically "Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?", and tell me.what you think, It'd be awesome. And you'd also be helping some of my work get through. I'll be contacting some other editors of the article also for a broader opinion. SoWhAt249 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson archive

Hi there.

Please don't make changes to archives, as you did here and here, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ow...It's accidental, not realized before, thanks for reminding this... — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

changing redirects

Making edits like this goes against WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, better changing the links directly to the real and precise target page, rather than redirected from misspelling/miscapitalization/mispunctuation and other erroneous sidelined pages. Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. WP:MPNOREDIRECT — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling, and mispunctuation isn't listed at MPNOREDIRECT. Sorry. This is not a spelling error. Also, quotes do not use italics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The punctuation error, capitalization error, etc. are included to Manual Of Style grammatical/spelling problems. I am sure that punctuation mistake that related to writing style mistakes is indirectly applied on MPNOREDIRECT; Read again carefully "Spelling errors and other mistakes"
"Rock music" is chosen as the naming convention of "Rock genre", "Rock", "Rock (music)", so on, thus be "good faith" on other users that I want to shorten the secondary link to exact primary article. Does Wikipedia prohibit this? — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Princeton University

Princeton University is the eighth oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, founded in 1746 after University of Delaware. Norahseener (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference sections

It appears you have not noticed the now three times I've reverted your edits to a couple of articles where you're changing the formatting; please stop doing this. It's unproductive and a violation of WP:CITEVAR. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not about violation of WP:CITEVAR but applying the "Order of article elements" (MOS:SECTIONORDER) as most articles do not use "Endnotes" but just simply "Notes" or "References" — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is; some editors prefer to refer to a list of cited sources as "References", "Bibliography", or "Works Cited" (and there are likely other variations as well); changing this merely to suit your own preferences is not acceptable. Stop doing it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As MOS:SECTIONORDER: "Title: Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material." Is "Endnotes" title among of these suggested choices?
It's not vandalism or big mistake on an article, then why you force another user to stop? or it is your own preference? — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

One wonders where you find authorization to impose your preferred style in that excerpt... Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I telling you to stop? Because you are imposing your preferences on a broad swath of articles that you did not write. You didn't even bother discussing it on the talk pages to see if those who did write them agreed with your change. That is the problem. You've been around far too long to not understand this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not mine, it's the preferred "Wikipedia policy choice" style. As for me, seeing an article with term Notes, Footnotes, Endnotes show too repetitive (the "notes"), so I revised to most common style around the encyclopedia. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Where in that text that you quoted does it say that articles must adhere to the format you prefer? You assumed that the listing implies anything beyond an arbitrary choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand this policy WP:OWNERSHIP (All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.) Now understand? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand what editing by consensus means? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Determining consensus — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCHANGE — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus christ, did you bother to read that? The onus is on you to justify the change. I will reiterate: you have not bothered to discuss this with anyone until I reverted several dozen of your edits. This is not acceptable behavior. The fact that you find yourself jumping around to different policies to try to WP:WIKILAWYER your way out of this should tell you something. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your whining sounds like {Just picking some examples Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements}: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (Implying some kind of right or status exists because of that.)
"Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
"Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
"You didn't have consensus because I was offline." — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're being willfully obtuse or you have WP:COMPETENCE issues. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I could definitely tell that you are trying to be "content owner" {based on facts above Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements} — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, it sure seems like that's what you're trying to do by imposing your preferred style across scores of articles... Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do I? do I whine around on other user-talkpage and force against a user to not edit on articles? or do you? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I told you to stop doing. I can see you are unwilling to admit that you're wrong, and that further discussion is a waste of my time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a mistake that everyone has their own preferences, but do you admit that you are content owner? — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. I wrote several of the articles you've made these edits to. I concur with Parsecboy that they contravene WP:CITEVAR and even MOS:SECTIONORDER, which states "Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose." For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not mandate a specific citation style. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you (User:The ed17) read this? Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (Implying some kind of right or status exists because of that.
Once again, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say so no WP:OWNERSHIP here;
Wikipedia is a free project and worked by collaborative people. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that Wikipedia is collaborative, perhaps you could partake of some collaboration, rather than fighting to get your way at every opportunity? Once again I find myself commenting on a section where you have wilfully gone against established consensus and ignored it when this is pointed out to you. Yes, "[e]ditors may use any reasonable section title that they choose", but that does not give you carte blanche to change them willy-nilly to whatever you choose. If a style has already been established, then to change it needs discussion and consensus.

What Ed means by their comment of creating the articles is that they decided on a given style - and were not wrong to do so as per SECTIONORDER. To change that however, and then insist on the change after being challenged, is definitely heading into WP:OWNERSHIP territory. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me a policy that every editor must get a permission or a consensus before edit an article from several users that "they decided on a given style"? Are those pages their own pages, or what? — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you are missing or avoiding the point, whether intentionally or not, but still missing the point. I understand you're a new editor, but you really should try to learn how things work before trying to change everything.

There is no policy that says you must get permission to edit or make changes, after all this is Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - but there is indeed policy that says if your edit is reverted then you must get consensus - not permission, but I'm sure you understand the difference - in order to keep or re-instate your changes. Not to do so is essentially edit warring and there are many policies surrounding that, and the likely actions for those who ignore it.

I'm presuming you know what consensus is, because you've not only alluded to it above, but also to the associated CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. However consensus hasn't changed simply because you want something different. If you want a change, you need to persuade others that said change is viable.

Another aspect that is not actually policy, but is a staple of all experienced and courteous editors is WP:BRD - Bold, revert and discuss. Not adhering to this is generally a forerunner of editwarring, and tends to cast the OP in poor light when discussion does arrive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what's the objective of this discussion? where there is a user who only try to give an alternative on writing style of articles and blamed by several other users who persistently insisting that this user done something wrong; what's the point? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The objective is to firstly provide an opportunity for you to put across your point of view, and secondly for you to learn from your experience. You've done the first, but not the second it seems. I don't see this going anywhere constructive. I'm done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Never be constructive, nor collaborative; when some people prolonging a long discussion just for sharing each POV on talkpage but they don't understand each other. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a check on "minor edit" will suffice it. (but takes more time for putting sentences on a lot of articles in progress) — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You might consider doing the rest of us the courtesy of leaving an edit summary for every edit you make. If that calls for you to slow down a bit, so much the better for the project, it would seem. Eric ^talk 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Navboxes

Hello. Please don't override the default title of {{Navboxes}} in NBA-related articles to add the page title. The convention per WP:NBAEL is to use the template's default title. Feel free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is consensus for changes to the default title, it's more efficient to edit the template's default display than flooding everyone's watchlist with mass page changes. Please stop, discuss, and establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you cannot block a user indefinitely just because the user did not immediately reply the talkpage comment in short period of time. If you want to discuss it, so discuss without "ban for indefinite expiration time", that truly excessive action of abusive admin to apply a ban on a user. As an admin, do you find any policy WP:RULES that if a user did not get WP:consensus related to non-binding Style advice then that user should be banned indefinitely? This is an abusive block for sure from admin who did not get quick response — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It does not matter what subject's navbox it is. If I remember correctly, this practice is not done to any existing navbox nests. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So BECAUSE ONLY I DID NOT GIVE FAST RESPONSE for adding some sentences on navbox templates with "advice" (not strict rule, nor vital policy) and "flooding watchlist" are punishable with indefinite ban? This is definitely nonsense. — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You have previously been blocked for edit warring and ignoring the consensus so this block is very much justifiable. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote in the block log: Admins can feel free to unblock if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus. You created an extreme case, making mass changes without any apparent consensus. I saw no benefit to Wikipedia for an editor to continue with mass changes that could leave mass reverts for others. Perhaps you just didn't see the notices? However, your intial responses have neither presented an established consensus, nor a plan to establish one. At this point, I'll leave it to an independent party to determine your status. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you (Sabbatino) understand what are you talking about? those blocks are quite abusive, if you know when there are "some users force consensus that obviously violating several policies" then the user (who trying to fix in accordance to the policies) has been banned because admin misinterpreting of WP:IDHT, is this justifiable? if you know when a user get banned because an aggressive editor reports inappropriately to noticeboard while the editor's behaviour still problematic in Arbitration Committee discussion, is this justifiable?

Not just because of "previous ban" argument (which you do not understand well) that admin action is justifiable, while your indefinite blocking just for not-fast response to "mere advice" problem, "flooding watchlist" and seeking a consensus, is very much unjustifiable from heedless and un-collaborative admin. — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What consensus you looking for? after stripping edit rights from a user for "weak arguments", Don't you realize it?

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for mass changes without responding to concerns.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)