User talk:Renamed user f9s9enfoabf

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Crazy Boris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

wqretsydui

Nemfudendo (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republics of the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abkhaz. 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) 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sikkimese monarchy referendum, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please note that WP:SPS (self-published sources) such as books published by Notions Press are not considered reliable sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crazy Boris! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sikkimese monarchy referendum several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Sikkimese monarchy referendum, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken action to open the issue on the talk page. I have also reverted the edit once again. I don't want an edit war any more than anyone else does, but I won't have my work disposed of without due process. Crazy Boris (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an issue is a good first step, but it is not the end. You can only incorporate changes to articles that have editor consensus', as mentioned in the message above. That means that you must seek and obtain the agreement of all the involved editors to your changes. You cannot treat Wikipedia as your private blog site. I have already alerted you (below) about the discretionary sanctions that can be imposed by admins if you do not adhere to Wikipedia policies. Editing against consensus is one of those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the talk page of the article where any consensus seems to go against the information I posted, since these details were never discussed beforehand, you've just been unilaterally undoing everything I write without actually engaging with my points in favor of keeping my work. I made my edits, I gave my source, I even gave the sources for my source which is more than most people ever do. I'm not seeking to use Wikipedia as a "private blog site", I'm not making edits that say "this is what I think", I'm just giving information as I understand it from my source, if anything I could levy the same against you, since you haven't provided anything to refute any information I've added. Not to mention I couldn't help but notice on your own talk page that you were basically told to do this by someone else who's wording indicates a clear bias in their own perception of the topic. I'm not backing down unless you can show real good faith discourse and engage in the discussion properly. Please do not make further edits unless we manage to put this issue to rest. It's frustrating to have to constantly undo your reversions when you have yet to provide any real counter to my points and frankly stressful for me to have to constantly hop around to different articles to check the current status and revert again and again. Please go to the talk page on the referendum article and discuss things there, since that is apparently the reason for this whole incident. Crazy Boris (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved.[edit]

Just letting you know I moved your report from WP:AN -> WP:ANI, it is a better forum for stuff like that. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]