User talk:MingScribe1368

Vandalism

Please be mindful of accusations of vandalism. This was not vandalism. Please read WP:AGF. — Czello ^(music) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Doping in China. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Doping in China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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 edit-war; read about how this is done. 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting the edits of others on the basis of your political preferences. The arguments for the NPOV edits have long been articulated on the Talk Page, not just by me, but by numerous other editors. These have been unaddressed and willfully ignored. Non-NPOV edits including lengthy allegations in the lead section are contrary to encyclopedic tone and the requirements of objectivity and neutrality. Secondly, a mention of what 3 medals stripped represents (i.e. 2% of the total stripped by the IOC for doping, and less than half that stripped by the United States) is important to introduce context and significance and to indicate the prevalence of doping and is something that meets the requirements of verifiability and required for neutrality. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly reject your claims that I was edit warring. Other editors, however, appear to have been wholesale reverting my edits. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war and, when I sent you that notice, you had made 3 reverts in 24 hours, so you were on the verge of violating 3RR. Believe me, I'm doing you a favour by giving you a heads up about that. — Czello ^(music) 07:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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.

TylerBurden (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]