Napoleonjosephine2020

Napoleonjosephine2020, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Napoleonjosephine2020! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello Napoleonjosephine2020. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Lindy Li, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Napoleonjosephine2020. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Napoleonjosephine2020|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I can promise you I am not being paid a single cent or farthing to make any edits. This is actually my first edit in five years. Am I correct in saying that you are personally highly disapproving of Li and wish to cast her in a negative light? Please forgive me if I'm mistaken. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lindy Li. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Which of my edits are disruptive? Can you please be specific? I am just trying to return her page to its original state prior to the onslaught of abuse and hate she's gotten in recent days.

You also never addressed my original point. Are you motivated by bias or animus against Li?

I'm happy to come to a consensus with you. What do you suggest? Are you willing to establish some common ground? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Napoleonjosephine2020! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for getting in touch. Encyclo openly admits to attacking Li as an opportunistic grifter on X, on a public forum!! He just admitted to harboring animosity towards Li. How can you let her page be sabotaged by those who hate her? Come on. I am appealing to everyone's common sense! Here's his tweet (he admitted to it himself): https://x.com/Laurence1084/status/1870496100081352924 Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 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. Kline • talk • contribs 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I responded: The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question?

I hope you reported the other individual for sabotaging the page of someone he clearly disdains at best and hates at worst. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

EncycloDeterminate case request

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @MJL. I really appreciate your time and graciousness. How do I request a third opinion? I'm having trouble submitting a request using this page: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Wikipedia%3AThird+opinion%2FInstructions

Am I doing this wrong or using the wrong page? I'm really doing my absolute best to resolve this in a respectful and expeditious manner — hope you see that! Happy holidays :) Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but I would simply start a WP:RFC as to whether this should or should not be included in the article. Then you can respond to your RFC with the reasonings for why it should (or should not) be kept. Be sure it only includes arguments based on our existing policies and guidelines (rather than the motives of any editors present or otherwise).
I hope that helps! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume bad faith when dealing with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve than to harm Wikipedia. Please remember to assume good faith with your fellow editors. Codename AD ^talk 21:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi I am not assuming bad faith when there is a literal paper trail across social media of that particular editor making attacks on the character of the subject whose article he is editing. There is evidence and I have the screenshots. Why are you being so harsh towards me? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Talk:Lindy Li. You removed an important talk page discussion because you disagreed with it. Stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was trying to undo his revision. How long will the tag remain? It's vandalism and there is no evidence that the article contains any promotional content. Every fact included has a citation or can be verified. Thanks. Happy new year! Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at Lindy Li. Please stop edit warring. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mag, I am not making any edits at all and am simply trying to stop the avalanche of vandalism that has engulfed Li's page. If you put her page under protection given her recent press attention, I think we can prevent a lot of ideologically-driven edits. Thank you. Happy new year! Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Lindy Li) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Given the bevy of issues that you have experienced on Lindy Li's page, I think its best you take a step away from it for the moment. You remain able to suggest changes to the article on the talk page; you will be expected to remain WP:CIVIL or your block will expand to the talk page too. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for protecting her page against vandals — that's all I was hoping for. Wishing you a fantastic new year! Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Napoleonjosephine2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't actually made any edits myself but have only reverted disruptive edits. There has been an avalanche of unjustified and sometimes even malicious (and once even racist — instead of calling her American, they wanted to call her "Chinese-born") edits of Li's page. In at least four years, I have never once initiated a change myself. Thank you so much for considering removing the block. I don't mean to be disruptive, only constructive and protective.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I haven't actually made any edits myself but have only reverted disruptive edits. There has been an avalanche of unjustified and sometimes even malicious (and once even racist — instead of calling her American, they wanted to call her "Chinese-born") edits of Li's page. In at least four years, I have never once initiated a change myself. Thank you so much for considering removing the block. I don't mean to be disruptive, only constructive and protective. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I haven't actually made any edits myself but have only reverted disruptive edits. There has been an avalanche of unjustified and sometimes even malicious (and once even racist — instead of calling her American, they wanted to call her "Chinese-born") edits of Li's page. In at least four years, I have never once initiated a change myself. Thank you so much for considering removing the block. I don't mean to be disruptive, only constructive and protective. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I haven't actually made any edits myself but have only reverted disruptive edits. There has been an avalanche of unjustified and sometimes even malicious (and once even racist — instead of calling her American, they wanted to call her "Chinese-born") edits of Li's page. In at least four years, I have never once initiated a change myself. Thank you so much for considering removing the block. I don't mean to be disruptive, only constructive and protective. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)