User talk:FilakiusPed

January 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "FilakiusWiki", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because misleading usernames: may impersonate celebrities, major world figures, known Wikipedia editors, etc. or contain phrases like "admin" or "sysop", which imply illusory authority on Wikipedia. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I use the name Filakius.., and simply add something at the end depending on which website I am on. I.e. FilakiusSteamAccount for Steam.., or FilakiusTempEmail etc. I am open to rewording it to FilakiusPedia or FilakiusPed or seomthing unrelated to assuming authority.

Please let me know if FilakiusPed is an okay username, and I will change it.

Done, albeit a few years late. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Rendlesham Forest incident, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing on Rendlesham Forest incident

Stop it or you will be blocked. This should be regarded as a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies related to edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rendlesham Forest incident. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all that's holy, stop! Other pages do not have the requirement you imposed. You'll get blocked if you keep this up, and that is never a good thing.Sumanuil (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are very close to being taken to ANI for your disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how? I am providing a perfect rationale for my actions. No one else is. What's the problem specifically? I am discussing changes in the "Talk" section.., and no one is responding.., but they are still editing without discussion. FilakiusWiki (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We operate on WP:CONSENSUS around here. Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors and you are clearly edit warring. Broadly speaking your editing history on this article suggests a WP:PROFRINGE WP:AGENDA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ad Orientem. All your edits from the very first one have been made to one single article, which makes you a single purpose account. And on Wikipedia such accounts, especially when they appear to be edit-warring for a particular point of view, tend to be flagged for special attention. I suggest you stick to the Talk page for the moment and try to gain some consensus for any changes you want to make to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am having is.., no one actually discusses anything in the "talk" section. I can post there.., and never hear back from anyone. But when I make an edit.., suddenly everyone has time to make changes.., but no time for the "talk" section. I'll give everyone time to catch up, but I don't think its fair I must wait to make edits.., just because everyone else doesn't log in and discuss in the talk section. FilakiusWiki (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018: no outing

You agreed with a speculation by an IP about the real-life identity of Skeptic2, and stated you'd "look into" it.[1] If you do, don't post any result of such "looking in" on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OUTING and Opposition research. These practices are unacceptable here, and people who indulge in them are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]