User talk:Consistently Heinous

Welcome!

Hello, Consistently Heinous, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave an edit summary

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Talk:Neo-Confederates did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Because you did not leave an edit summary I failed to understand why you thought that article fell within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism. Please feel free to join the discussion on the Neo-Confederates talk page. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. You should always provide an edit summary. Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding inappropriate WikiProject banners

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your addition of the WikiProject Discrimination banner to the article's talk page is not understood by other editors and has been reverted. As far as I am aware, there is no discrimination against those of Islamic faith in New Zealand. Why did you do this? Also, I cannot help but notice you have been making inappropriate WikiProject banner additions to other talk pages, some of which have also been reverted. Please explain why you think adding these additional WikiProject banners is necessary. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at L, you may be blocked from editing. You have already been warned about adding incorrect WikiProject tags. Please stop this immediately. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sodomy. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Hello. I'm Serge, an admin here on Wikipedia. I'm not taking a side on whether or not your Wikiproject tagging is correct or not, but what is wrong is your approach. If people object to your changes, you need to stop and come to a WP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed, not just keep undoing/redoing it.

Please hold a centralized discussion on the talk page of the Wikiprojects on whether or not your actions are correct.

If you keep re-adding contested ones without a consensus, your account will receive a short block. So please follow through on this. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sergecross73, I was just about to start an ANI. Should I go through with it? Consistenly Heinous just undid 14 of my reverts. With the prior final warning and messages, I find it hard to assume good faith. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold off. If they do it any further, they'll simply be blocked. I won't stop you though if you'd prefer that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 and @Soetermans: I too have concerns about this user's editing behaviour. They have not provided edit summaries, despite being asked, twice, and sometimes added WikiProject banners both myself and others have considered inappropriate, or at least questionable. They have not participated in discussing or explaining their actions or behaviour, so far, despite being invited to do so. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 72 hours to stop the disruption and force engagement. If it continues after that, it will be indef. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thanks. I noticed this as I added my comment at about the same time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (brand) now a disambiguation page

Hi Consistently Heinous, I disagree with your redirect of Apple (brand) to Apple Inc., so I have turned the redirect into a disambiguation page. I am surprised that you were not aware of Apple Corp and Apple records as well as the trademark disputes of Apple Corps v Apple Computer. There are several other organisations that have used an apple as a brand, with "Apple Inc." being only one of them. Please do your basic research more thoroughly, as things are not always quite as simple as you might think. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2024 (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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

-Lemonaka 03:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see you are making an effort to participate in editing here. However, with regards to adding WikiProjects to articles, some of the additions you have made in the past are questionable. Additionally, it does not appear that you are actually participating in the WikiProjects you are adding. WikiProjects are not a "tag" to add an article to. Rather, they are specific projects with specific goals and objectives to accomplish. It would be better if you actually participate in the projects you are interested in first before you start adding articles to the project. Become familiar with the project's objectives by working on its to-do list first. Then you'll have a better idea what articles do and do not belong in the project. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"questionable", can you give any examples?, and what policy does it say that you have to be part of a WikiProject to add it to an article?, if the article is within the scope of the WikiProject, what's wrong with adding it? Consistently Heinous (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"questionable", can you give any examples?: Yes. First off, basically everything you added to WikiProject Death was out of scope per that project's own criteria. The Discrimination project is inactive, so adding articles to that project accomplishes nothing - there's no one working on the project, so there's no point in adding articles to it. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]