User talk:Nick the Napoleon

December 2024

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Caesar salad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Valereee (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts?

Your discussion at the Great Edit War MfD seemed to suggest you had prior involvement with Wikipedia. There can be legitimate reasons to have multiple accounts but it is required, in those circumstances, that prior accounts be disclosed. Can you confirm whether this is your only Wikipedia account? Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes this my only account. And I consider myself a bit of a war time contributor. One who comes in times of conflict for Wikipedia and when situations need some kind of outside voice of reason. And my involvement with the great edit war MfD is a long story. Nick the Napoleon (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that engaging in vandalism then coming into an ongoing conversation at a CTOP page and basically going, nice page, shame if someone disrupted it is not a good way to establish one's self as a "voice of reason." I would suggest that you consider your approach more carefully in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was in the past that vandalism if look at my work after my first edit you'll see that I took that original warning to heart. And what mean by wartime Wikipedia is that I someone will meaning in intentions And only wishes to help by sharing an sane opinion on a disputed page. In the case of gulf of Mexico I believe there should be a footnote mentioning the Gulf of America. It not unreasonable I'm not asking them to change the title that's unreasonable. There should be a footnote or a blue note that all. That why I have decided to return to Wikipedia on that page. I felt I had a same opinion to share on the talk page compared to most of these people. I know Nick the Napoleon is a bombastic username but I mean well in the pages I enter. Nick the Napoleon (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]