User talk:T931201

Deleted talk topic.

Miss Universe 2024 editing

Hello It is permissible by Wikipedia to add in the flag icons of countries of competing nations in the table, especially on the day of the pageant. This allows for easier editing, once the pageant has been completed. Also, when adding winners of pageant, you need to read any instructions that are listed at the top of the editing box. I had to go in and correct the format you had for Miss Panama. And in reference to my earlier point, the flag icon etc was already added, ready for quick editing, before you added the winner. Thirdly, and lastly, you need to add citations for winners of the pageants. Just watching them live, as I did myself, and seeing the result, is not enough for Wikipedia. If you do not have a citation to a reputable source, you must add a citation needed tag, as I did on Miss Panama. If you have any questions about sources for pageants on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources. Kindest regards Heidi bradshaw (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Heidi bradshaw. First, please avoid spamming my talk page with your canned message. Secondly, concerning the addition of flags before the election of the Miss in question, perhaps Wikipedia in English allows it (nothing proves it to me) but even if it has no interest apart from wanting to be in the sensational. Waiting for the Miss to be elected and for this information to be confirmed with a source either from the networks or from an online media is more in the encyclopedic spirit of Wikipedia. Besides, adding the flag after the election doesn't take much time. Thirdly regarding the sources, I did say (if you read a little more instead of persisting in putting up the flags before the election like one sells the skin of the bear before having killed it) that I would add sources when press articles come out (probably during the day) because I consider that a press article is more reliable than social networks in terms of sources. Finally regarding the instructions, I will try to be more careful next time. T931201 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning

I did not spam your page.

May I suggest you contact an experience editor on pageants user:Milesq, who will confirm that it IS permissible to have the entry ‘ready’ for the winner of a pageant, especially on the day of the contest.

Whilst I have been on Wikipedia for some 8 years, and am constantly learning, I will not take dictation from a user of just ONE month.

Kind regards

Heidi bradshaw (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Heidi bradshaw.

You imposed this long and pre-prepared message on my talk page. Once again, nothing proves to me that this is authorized (if it really is, you have a help page to confirm it for me) and even if it is authorized, that doesn't change the fact that it has no use apart from making a duplicate table of candidates / tables of upcoming elections, leaving blank boxes in the table and reacting to sensationalism while the very principle of Wikipedia is to wait to have a source (whether from social networks or online presses) to add information, Wikipedia having an encyclopedic nature.

Besides, who tells you that I don't have experience with Wikipedia in other languages ​​or with Wikipedia in English? Not to mention that just because you've been registered for 8 years doesn't mean you're an expert or that I don't have anything to teach you, so please go back down one floor. T931201 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am here to inform you that I would revert on your behalf had it not because the matter would be moot in a few hours. You are in the right per WP:NOW and WP:EDITCON, happy editing! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho Thank you for this announcement, which reinforces my idea of ​​Wikipedia 🙂🙏🏻. I am of course not closed to debate or even to advice but I do not appreciate being looked down upon and threatened. T931201 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know I am leaving Wikipedia permanently of my own accord. I wish you well. Goodbye. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to clarify the wording above the table being "the following contestants" and not "the following countries" was the reason you were correct here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

Just to let you know I am leaving Wikipedia permanently of my own accord. I wish you well.

Goodbye. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Heidi bradshaw

I'm not asking you to leave Wikipedia permanently, your work is useful to the community. I just ask you not to look down on me and to discuss things instead of wanting to be absolutely right.

However, I apologize if my words hurt you, that was not my intention. I just got upset that you looked down on me and didn't want to talk. T931201 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate @Heidi bradshaw's intent when blanking this talk page, there is a way to accomplish this according to WP:MUTUAL, a user may propose an agreement with another user to simultaneously remove both of their comments, this is a preferable outcome if both users can agree.

Relevant advice

1. WP:DROPTHESTICK: If the debate died a natural death‍—‌let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it.

2. WP:NOSHAME: The truth is, provided that you had your own good intentions when you made the contributions, even if others disagree with the changes you made, you have done nothing wrong. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

MF 2025

Can you please stop disruptive editing on the Miss France 2025 article? The source I provided is an interview with Lilou Émeline-Artuso herself which states she is from Antibes. She was crowned Miss Mandelieu-la-Napoule, which is why that town is sometimes being cited as her hometown, but she makes it very clear that she is from Antibes. Her personal accounts such as LinkedIn cite her hometown as Antibes as well, but I am not even using that as a source here, just mentioning it.

Quote: Cette élection-là s’est déroulée il y a environ un mois. Antiboise de naissance ayant en partie grandi dans la cité des Remparts, Lilou Emeline-Artuso s’est lancée dans cette folle épopée mandolocienne faute de concours antibois.

References

{ [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Jjj1238, it is your modifications that are disruptive. To begin with in your source, Miss Côte d'Azur does not indicate that she was born in Antibes, it is the local press that says so. Then, I can cite numerous sources (including some from the national press or from the Miss Paca committee) indicating that it is indeed Mandelieu-la-Napoule and not in Antibes (1,2 3 4, ) Furthermore, Noelastardu54 agrees with me. T931201 (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you have already been blocked for edit warring, I suggest you do not want to make your block worse. I'm not really sure what you're not understanding though. The source I provided is from the premier newspaper of her region Nice-Matin which includes a direct interview with her where it is not only stated that she is from Antibes, but that she only competed in Mandelieu-la-Napoule because of the lack of a pageant in her hometown of Antibes. This is explicitly stated in the source, which is an interview with Émeline-Artuso herself, that should trump any and all other sources when there is a dispute of this nature. The Miss Côte d'Azur pageant saying she is from Mandelieu-la-Napoule is irrelevant when local media, in an interview with Émeline-Artuso herself, directly contradicts this and gives an explanation as to how it is incorrect. Mégane Bertaud has equally confirmed she is not from Saint-Raphaël but instead from Tourrettes yet was cited by Miss Provence as being from Saint-Raphaël because of her title as Miss Saint-Raphaël, but I am not pushing on that one because I have not looked deeply into independent sources confirming it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Eurosong 2025

Hello, friendly reminder to avoid edit warring even if talk page supports you, you've made eight reverts on the page between 12:24, 9 August 2024 to 08:08, 10 August 2024. The three-revert rule is actually quite unequivocal on this, so no more than three reverts in 24 hours. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Sir Kenneth Kho 👋🏻🙂 . I hope are you well. Among Wikipedia's rules, we also find the fact that each added information must be accompanied by a source whose traceability is verifiable and whose comments are clear and unequivocal, which is not the case for Wikipedia. France at Eurovision 2025 (currently) hence my deletions. I don't want to get into an editing war either, but unfortunately we're getting into it because some Internet users ignore the rules and the opinions of other Internet users... It's not me who should say that . T931201 (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I know, but the three-revert rule only makes an exception if the unsourced content is about biography of living person. The verifiability policy can be invoked in the talk page or by reverting if you have not three reverts in the past 24 hours. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho The rule of traceability is more important, not to mention that I tried to exchange in a calm and respectful manner on the discussion page before making these revocations, and all that to be insulted as a "crazy" who has "a serious problem” so thank you very much ... T931201 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is probably more important, but content violations (such as verifiability) can't lead to sanctions, while conduct violations (such as three-revert rule) can lead to sanctions. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho What is a conduct violation is calling other internet users “crazy” with a “serious problem”. T931201 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware Sir Kenneth Kho above has made you aware of this but I'm leaving this formal notice since the 3RR is unequivocally clear about this:

Your recent editing history 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. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Ser!. You can read, this is what I did at the beginning, not wanting to get into an editing war, I left a message on the discussion page explaining in a polite manner and giving my arguments my disagreements and many people( @Sir Kenneth Kho, @Yoyo360, @Violatie … ) agree with me. In response to this, I was called “crazy” with a “serious problem” so thank you very much. ... T931201 (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You reverted eleven times in the space of 24 hours, and then again reverted when informed about the three revert rule. I've filed a 3RR noticeboard report about your behaviour because this isn't acceptable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ser! Unjustified knowing that it was not my goal and as proof of my good faith, in my first message, I explain the disagreement in a polite manner and by explaining my arguments. Take sanctions against those who insulted me, you will be more useful. T931201 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I respected the rules and went to the talk page to politely and respectfully explain my disagreement and make my arguments clear and many people agreed with me, hence my edits. In response to this, I was insulted and provoked by being called "crazy" with "childish behavior" and a "serious problem" so it was not me who behaved badly. The disruptive edits were certainly not mine. T931201 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Not me who behaved badly", they say while frantically trying to cover up their misdeeds by edit-warring on, ironically, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Funny. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@T931201: This is a short block since new editors cannot be expected to appreciate how things work. However well intentioned, edit warring at the edit warring noticeboard is a grave mistake that will lead to a much longer block if there is any repeat. If you are reverted, you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and do not try to force your edit through by repeating it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Rio0601 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rio0601. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)