My talk page:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited with other accounts on Wikipedia? If so, you need to disclose them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the Simon Wiesenthal Center. But you don't really care about Wikipedia being neutral point of view, do you? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been described as neo-nazi by reliable sources. MPSCL 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problem with Azov Battalion being called a neo-nazi organisation, feel free to complain to the WP:RS included in the article and get them to withdraw or correct their story. Wikipedia cares about neutral point of view, that is why it only reports what reliable sources claim. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Roman_Protasevich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.250.41.104 (talk) date (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, though I do not think it will get approved, I haven't seen any IPs vandalizing. You were right in reverting him, citing a 2015 RfC as a reason to remove neo-nazi classification from a neo-nazi group is, in my opinion, dishonest. Also you should sign your comments using 4 tildes ~~~~ CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are close to violating 3RR rule on page Roman Protasevich. Also note that such your edit [1] is a misinterpretation of cited source (BBC article). The BBC article does not say "Neo-Nazi". It says "which has been accused". This is not the same. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Roman Protasevich—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: Thank you for this message, however if you look closely at the source, you can see that the quote is cut short, without any proper explanation, hence why I added the cut-out part. Perhaps look at the source before making rash reverts like this? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made this revert during a WP:Huggle session, and the message you received was auto-generated. However, However, I should have chosen an option which would dhave generated a message mentioning WP:BLP. Generally, mere accusation is not noteworthy enough for mention in Wikipedia. In this case, WP:BLPPUBLIC may apply. Even there, though, the guidance is: " noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". I will let your unrevert stand for now, and regular editors of that article can handle it one way or the other. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xi Jinping. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Des Vallee (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. per WP:3RR. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting that you seem to understand how BLP works when editing Xi Jinping but not when editing Roman Protasevich[2]. Selective use of wikipedia policies and guidelines to push a POV will get you blocked, please follow the rules at all times. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:3RR policy, not a BLP policy. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. What did you think BLP stood for? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. 19:19 26 - this is a revert of this edit
2. 13:20 27
3. 12:31 27
4. 16:25 27

Please self-revert. Also note that Morning Star is a poor source for that: see it in Perennial_sources, My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is trying to get you banned as a Sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL

Not sure if you're my sock or if I'm yours, but it isn't a great look that we edited RFE/RL at the same time. It's funny though lol. BSMRD (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the sockpuppet investigation and getting live updates of what you're doing, it really is. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that you've recently added a new userbox to your user page that relates to anarchists. I believe that the inclusion of the userbox is likely not in line with WP:POLEMIC, a guideline that covers content on user pages. I'm respectfully asking that you please remove the userbox from your user page, in line with this guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for bringing up this concern, I didn't think it would be considered offensive, but if you feel it's offensive to you I can remove it. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this here rather than on User talk:Mikehawk10 since it no longer concerns them: I didn't mean for my tone to come off as patronizing. My intention was to emphasize the importance of not doing this sort of thing.

I'm usually pretty good at telling when someone is cruising for a block. It's a sense one picks up after a while. A lot of people don't like to point it out to editors who are, perhaps because it can come off as a threat. But I'm not an admin, and I don't do ANI, so I'm really just giving my analysis. Age + edit count + number of warnings + block proposal at ANI a month ago that was 4-1 when it was archived = You're not in a great situation. That's not me being patronizing. Just facts. Well, experience-based analysis of facts.

So yeah, as I indicated there, the best way to avoid a block is to just stick to regular content edits. Do check out CAT:CN. I find it quite rewarding to find an unsourced statement that's been in article for 15 years, do some quick Googling, and then either find the source that's been missing all along, or determine that it fails verification and remove it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not follow my edits as you did here and here. You never edited these pages before and followed my edits in a matter of hours to revert them. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Please adhere to Wikipedia policy when editing, adding unsourced content, especially into WP:BLP articles can be reverted without being classified as WP:FOLLOWING, as per Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

However, I would like to ask the same of you, please do not go around editing articles where I contributed and removing content without explanation. Not only is this against policy, but this is a textbook example of hounding. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was last warning. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciated. Keep in mind that I also mean you following edits by other contributors, not only me. Personally, I think that following edits by other contributors can be OK, but everything depends on what exactly you do. For example, this is not good, because you are making a a personal accusation on an article talk page, and you can not support it. This is the reason I asked you not to follow my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked you not to follow my edits, and here you are again [3],[4]. Note that you refused to discuss, but resorted to edit war (2nd diff), and that the motive was there until very recently. I also do not understand what your edit summaries suppose to mean in these edits. Probably the best page about genocides in WP is Holocaust, and it does provide the motive in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I have edited the talk page of the article way before you and have been watching the Uyghur genocide article, it is you who went on multiple articles I edited and removed content without explanation.

  Second of all, the difference between your edit and the holocaust article is the fact that the latter provides actual motive, not a consequence. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As clear from the diff, you followed my edit, specifically to revert it [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your resilience in the face of adversity. VikingDrummer (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, there is no point in continuing this revert war.[6] If you are not convinced of the answer that the user gave you, ask the opinion of some admin.--Mhorg (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've seen at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, I think we can safely assume that if the committee wanted to limit participation of non extended-confirmed users in RfCs, they would have made it clear, like in the page I linked. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert of this stuff, but I think that asking some admin will make you resolve the matter, for better or for worse, without incurring penalties.--Mhorg (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

v. [7] and [8], where can I read more on these "Kamikaze Sock" accounts from the past?VikingDrummer (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that linking to stuff like that would fall under WP:PROBLEMLINKS, however these are all related to the eastern european mailing list, which has been covered not only on Wikipedia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It required some searched, but I found it.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]