Revision as of 15:00, 6 July 2023 editNemoralis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,892 edits →Akane Yamaguchi: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:51, 10 July 2023 edit undoR.Lemkin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users929 editsNo edit summaryTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:Hi. I'm not native speaker. You can ask in ] ] (]) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC) | :Hi. I'm not native speaker. You can ask in ] ] (]) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:51, 10 July 2023
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages;
- 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.
1RR
Hello NMW03, you recently broke the WP:1RR on the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War article which you can find first thing on talk, the same 1RR that when placed in an article, also appears when one is undoing something, so you should've been aware of it yet you broke it. Not only that but you also made an edit reverting the information that was discussed extensively in the talk, and you didn't even discuss the change you wanted to enforce before making the edit. Please self-revert, if you wish to make a change, discuss in talk beforehand. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @KhndzorUtogh next time, please add discussion's link in edit summary. I see three users disagreeing with you in that discussion. You didn't reply to the last comment for 4 days, only coming back to reply a day after the main user disagreeing with you was topic banned. That's not a very good look. I am going to ping the participators in the discussion to resume the discussion who aren't topic banned. NMW03 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you appreciate that instead of reporting you for breaching 1RR I came to your talk out of good faith. Now, when you're undoing your reverts after having breached 1RR and having not commented on talk, please be so kind to self-revert not just one but all of your edits, including this; the rationale for this was already explained on talk a long time ago. Furthermore, it's baffling to me that with all this discussion investigating, you didn't notice that my reply was literally directed to a completely different user who isn’t blocked and could’ve commented any time. You can see that in a separate comment I did announce the changes I made on the article talk, nobody commented on it or opposed it (even though anyone else who was not blocked, could comment) hence your remark “not a very good look” is undue. Please undo all of your reverts and try achieving consensus on talk. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're the one who made changes to the article without consensus, and those changes were reverted. Per WP:BRD, the idea is for us to discuss and find consensus on any modifications before adding them. One month isn't "a long time ago". I'm not going to revert my other edit per WP:BRD. Can we continue this discussion on the talk page of that article? NMW03 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Something that isn't challenged for that long from any editor in that discussion is consensus per WP:SILENCE, hence I implemented the changes you now want to contest. You are the one who wants to introduce a change (which, as you can see, I’m challenging), hence it's on you to try to reach consensus, I therefore reverted your edit. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're the one who made changes to the article without consensus, and those changes were reverted. Per WP:BRD, the idea is for us to discuss and find consensus on any modifications before adding them. One month isn't "a long time ago". I'm not going to revert my other edit per WP:BRD. Can we continue this discussion on the talk page of that article? NMW03 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you appreciate that instead of reporting you for breaching 1RR I came to your talk out of good faith. Now, when you're undoing your reverts after having breached 1RR and having not commented on talk, please be so kind to self-revert not just one but all of your edits, including this; the rationale for this was already explained on talk a long time ago. Furthermore, it's baffling to me that with all this discussion investigating, you didn't notice that my reply was literally directed to a completely different user who isn’t blocked and could’ve commented any time. You can see that in a separate comment I did announce the changes I made on the article talk, nobody commented on it or opposed it (even though anyone else who was not blocked, could comment) hence your remark “not a very good look” is undue. Please undo all of your reverts and try achieving consensus on talk. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. 2402:800:6344:2A73:8DE5:C07C:DACA:63E6 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not native speaker. You can ask in WP:GOCER NMW03 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. R.Lemkin (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)