User talk:EmilCioran1195
Welcome
|
August 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pot. Kettle. Black. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
For a new user you seem to be displaying a battleground mentality very early on. I've undone your edit at the above article. Substantively, you need to argue why your removal of material from the lead is appropriate, but your edit summary is unacceptable. Your personal opinion of others is fine outside of Wikipedia, but if I see you express it in an edit summary (or on a Talk page) again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please quote where I have expressed a "personal opinion of others"? Incidentally, are personal opinions forbidden on Wikipedia Talk pages? If so, then....that first sentence seems distressingly close to a personal opinion of me :-) EmilCioran1195 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- "she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot" You can't call a WP:BLP names.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's what the sources say (sans "crackpot") - it's hardly a "personal opinion". So, just to be clear, is calling someone a "crackpot" on their article's Talk Page a block-able offense? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Good to know, I'll be in touch - you sure do have a lot of work cut out for you! EmilCioran1195 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's what the sources say (sans "crackpot") - it's hardly a "personal opinion". So, just to be clear, is calling someone a "crackpot" on their article's Talk Page a block-able offense? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- "she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot" You can't call a WP:BLP names.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring against consensus, final warning
Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
EmilCioran1195 is still engaging in edit warring. Nearly all of his edit across various articles are being undone. Could we just block him already? HSukePup (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
IRANPOL General sanctions
EmilCioran1195, you need to respond with something, anything. An automated edit summary is not an explanation. El_C 01:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
El_C 01:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)