User talk:Emiya1980/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hearst family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Courier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Emiya1980

I see you're drafting an appeal of your sanction, and strongly recommend you reconsider potentially filing. At some point you need to accept criticism from the community if you want to remain an editor in good standing on a collaborative project. There is no evidence I've seen that you've introspected about what your peers are trying to tell you. Instead, you seem to categorically dismiss the possibility that the community does not want you discussing infoboxes—despite what you have been told by a significant number of editors—never mind the possibility that they may have good reasons for holding the positions that they do. It does not seem like you are trying to understand where other editors are coming from. At some point, the lack of evidence for your acknowledgement of external social facts that you do not personally agree with—and instead a perennial fixation on technicalities of procedure that do not override the clear central point—will make it unreasonable to assume good faith in your actions. Social interactions are inexact but generally meaningful, and you are not entitled to infinite process for your own edification when the central point and validity of the sanction is clear to literally everyone else I've seen talk about it.

I understand this is a sprawling critique, but I don't intend to pursue this further if you would prefer not to interact with me. I'm only telling you this because I still think there's a possibility you will adjust your behavior and more successfully collaborate with others. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a threat? Otherwise, mind your own business and stop looking at my sandbox. If anything, you've only given more reasons to challenge the sanction against me. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I have an editor here pressuring me not to file an appeal. Is this acceptable behavior from another editor involved in my sanction? Emiya1980 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make your appeal. Remsense is hinting at a lack of general sympathy for your position. Wikipedia is not a solo project; you need to persuade others to agree with you. The people who review your appeal (after you submit it) may be be interested in any evidence that you negotiated patiently with others. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it sounds like he's threatening that he and other editors may be inclined to turn the heat up against me if I do make an appeal. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you, it reads like a warning that the constant combativeness you demonstrate such as you did at Talk:Leonid_Brezhnev is going to result in the community deciding you are WP:NOTHERE per Treating editing as a battleground, and that you should instead reflect on the criticisms you have received rather than trying to appeal this sanction. If the community has voted to Tban you from infoboxes for 6 months (Infoboxes being considered a contentious topic), you should really consider that you may have erred. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrocadeRiverPoems and Remsense: If I seem especially combative lately, it is because numerous editors seem inclined to assume any contributions on my part (whether it be through bold editing or mere discussions) are in bad faith. When I was originally called to the ANI thread, I admitted fault to pushing the envelope with regards to Rfcs considering lede images. Since the recent topic ban, I have had time to reconsider employing the Rfc process to buck consensus on long-standing images after a sizable number of editors have expressed satisfaction with the status quo. With being said, what has been characterized in this thread as "the community" seems hell-bent on assuming the worst possible intent behind every attempt I make at constructive editing and looking for a chance to get me banned. In the discussion over at the Leonid Brezhnev article, I was accused of casting aspersions when I expressed concerns about an editing trend that seemed designed to play up Brezhnev's successes at the expense of his failures. When User:BrocadeRiverPoems ultimately opted to remove the unverified statement in the article representing that "the Soviet Union reached unprecedented and never-repeated levels of power, prestige, and internal calm under Brezhnev's rule", this edit was reverted by a user who was ultimately revealed to be abusing multiple accounts in order to implement their vision on how Wikipedia should look. Seeing as how I also reverted an edit by said user misleadingly characterizing a statement by Gorbachev about Brezhnev as a refutation of the earlier criticisms he directed at the latter's policies, such concerns were clearly not as baseless as they were made out to be.

If you have constructive criticism regarding how I can improve my editing going forward, I am willing to listen. However, regardless of the intent behind it, it is difficult for me not to become defensive when "friendly advice" is accompanied by threats of being banned and overtly negative assumptions about my intentions on Wikipedia.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980, I really appreciate your posting this. Thanks for taking me in good faith. I appreciate how stressful this kind of collective scrutiny can be. I'll add to this later, but for the moment I just wanted to make sure you know I'm glad to work with you going forward, of course. Remsense ‥ 论 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have constructive criticism regarding how I can improve my editing going forward, I am willing to listen

Well, for starters, the reason you seemed combative was because you began with I have noticed a concerning editing trend on the Leonid Brezhnev that seems designed to play up Brezhnev's successes. You can begin a discussion about the neutrality of the article without coming out seeming like you're accusing everyone else involved on the article of having an agenda. While it is true that someone was being a bit of a troublemaker and abusing multiple accounts, it is also equally true that the statement I removed had been in the article since as far back as 2009 that I could find. You could have, for instance, broached the subject about the "internal calm" statement and requested verification of some manner and it would've been revealed just the same that the source cited doesn't say what was being represented. I don't really have much opinion about you or your editing one way or another, they were all incidents which I was wholly uninvolved in save for participating in an RfC or two of yours that I felt were wholly unnecessary. Your statements like the one above and the I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag coupled with you hatting Remsense's conversation are what made me say you seemed to have a battlefield mentality and were drawing a line in the sand. In particular the I am unwilling to consider removing the NPOV tag was the big red flag for me. Your statements around the WWII article gave the impression that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's just a reality that your reputation is going to precede you for anyone who has seen that discussion for a bit. I wouldn't fret too much about it.

Your initial post was accusatory and nonspecific, basically. If you would have said "Hey everybody, I've noticed some material on the Leonid Brezhnev article that seems like it could be a WP:NPOV violation" and then gave an example of the areas you had problems with, I don't think it would have come across as negatively as it did.

Just looking at your edit history, you seem to have been doing good work on various articles. Mostly I'd suggest a softer approach to discussions versus the semi-accusatory nature of your first post on the Brezhnev discussion. Honestly if you steer clear of infoboxes for a bit, maintain a positive editing history, and try to work on your approach to talk page discussions a bit, you'll probably have success in the appeal.

Likewise, instead of flagging the entire article as NPOV, you could utilize other maintenance tags such as Template:Verify_source or Template:Attribution_needed or Template:POV_statement, Template:Needs_independent_confirmation, Template:Disputed_section, Template:POV_section and Template:Unbalanced_opinion are all good tags you can use rather than flagging an entire article as NPOV violation.

Cheers Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

WP:CANVASS - According to wikipedia guidelines, "canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

Alerting users like BrocadeRiverPoems and then establishing a sandbox hours later regarding the editorial dispute about Hirohito may be overstepping boundaries, as it seems the sandbox was formed due to your dissatisfaction with his remarks. disputes should be taken to talk. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]