User talk:Cutio.mer

Welcome!

Hello, Cutio.mer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dalida. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am speachless. There is a poll. Countless proofs and after months the historical thruth was reinstated on Wikipedia, someone changes it and it is ok. Cutio.mer (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cutio.mer, it seems to me that you are still not really understanding, especially as you answered Binksternet's message with ...after months the historical thruth was reinstated on Wikipedia, someone changes it and it is ok. Please allow me to clarify a little, in particular with regard to this article:

We aren't interested in "Truth" but in what can be verified, what is reported in the sources we use. Usually that is true (we hope so, anyway), but it is not what is usually meant by Truth ~ a single, standard set of facts which cannot be varied and must be reported in full every time;

Not absolutely everything that can be verified or is true is reported; we are selective in our writing, giving the most important facts and opinions (not ours, but those found in our sources) for our readers to gain an introduction to each subject;

We work as a community; for our purposes that means we work by consensus, agreeing on which are the good sources and important facts/opinions; we do not try and impose our view on each other, but rather seek to work through discussion to come to an agreement;

In this article that consensus seems to have been formed most recently here, in an RfC started by Binksternet in May of last year and attended by fourteen (by my quick count) community members with perhaps, as Binskernet says above, a divided result but no consensus at all (including in subsequent discussion) to move away from the current phrasing which was the previous consensus.

Consensus can, indeed, change so if you wish to see if it has changed, i suggest you make helpful, sourced, and useful comments here on the talk page, rather than changing the article after it has been shown to currently match consensus. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 03:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]