User talk:EdgierEdgar

Hi EdgierEdgar! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the help you’ve been. There have been so many problems with that article, and you’ve come with fresh eyes and been actually fixing things instead of getting bogged down by the main conflict. I really appreciate itLe Blue Dude (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you saying that. Yes, that article has a lot of issues but I think we are making progress! Happy to help, and good luck! EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

EdgierEdgar, please keep in mind to always use your own judgement. Coordinating edits in a dispute to win an edit war would be a form of meatpuppetry that can lead to a block from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi EdgierEdgar! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sinfest 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 at Talk:Sinfest, 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Which "repeated reversions" are you referring to? EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The templated message is not 100% accurate at describing that you have joined an edit war with Special:Diff/1275578117, with an edit summary that leaves no doubt about you knowing about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Yes I agree, the messages you've left me were "not 100% accurate." EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure what's going on regarding the edits at Okashina Okashi – Strange Candy and the COI claims. The article was mentioned at BLPN. I see you have done quite a few edits on comic articles and I'm going to assume you know what you are talking about, so please continue the good work. However, WP:BLP stuff requires a delicate hand at Wikipedia. Look at like this: anyone can edit an article and the people most motivated to do that are those bearing a grudge. Perhaps the grudge has a sound basis and the target should have a pile of muck dumped on them. However, because of the difficulty in managing that kind of editing, it is very dimly regarded here. In particular, an edit like this is what is known as a WP:COATRACK. That is, the article is about a webcomic but that edit uses the article to add muck about a person. An argument could be made that the issue is relevant because it is (according to the edit) why the comic stopped. But piling it on like that is not suitable for Wikipedia. If the person concerned had an article, the article should cover the legal issues (especially if there was a conviction as opposed to an accusation or an arrest). Since the person is not notable, there is no article. That means, another article must not be used to pile muck on. Further, spreading the muck around like this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. An interesting essay is WP:ADAM. If you have any questions, feel free to reply here or ask at WP:Teahouse. If you are really keen on mentioning something, it would have to be very toned down, not in the lead, sourced to something impressive, and WP:DUE. Also, it would be in one article only and (since it is contentious), the discussion at BLPN would have to play out and the article talk page would have to be used to justify the proposed addition. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, you should also take note that to even consider including anything on this, we'd first need a secondary published reliable source (we DO NOT use court records and the like for such matters, see WP:BLPPRIMARY) which clearly established that the convicted individual was the same person as that in our article, and not just someone sharing the same name. And on a more general point, take note that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia: on talk pages etc, as well as in articles. Accordingly, if you don't have the necessary secondary sources, and at least a strong argument for inclusion in an article, it shouldn't be discussed at all, even on talk pages.

With regard to CoI allegations (which you appear to have been making), again take note that you need to be particularly careful. If you have actual evidence that a contributor has convictions of the type referred to, you need to discuss it privately, vie email, with ArbCom. We have specific policy regarding bans for individuals in such circumstances, but they need a lot more to go on than mere supposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

...edit section headers after they have been responded to. Doing so alters the context for the response. See WP:TALK#REPLIED. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Since this was in the section header of my previous comment, and since my comment was about how the article has "far from reliable independent sourcing" and since your response was about "remove all the poorly-sourced and promotional content," I thought that adding "Needs reliable independent sources," would make the section heading more clear and accurate. Based on your comment above, I have restored the previous version. EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this You are seriously pushing your luck. I suggest that you drop this 'CoI' stuff, and concentrate on dealing with issues regarding the article. Accusing someone who's only edits to an article are to remove content which was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy is utterly unacceptable, it doesn't matter a damn if they had a CoI when they made the edit. Policy explicitly permits anyone to remove such material. As I have already noted, if you have actual evidence of CoI, ArbCom is clearly best equipped to deal with this privately, otherwise, if you persist with these pointless and repetitive CoI allegation posts, which clearly aren't going anywhere as most are far too stale to act on, and appear to be motivated by matters external to article content, and to Wikipedia, I'm not going to mess around, I'm going to take your behaviour straight to ArbCom myself - I have to, since there are serious privacy concerns, and raising it at e.g. WP:ANI would inevitably make them worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it says that at the top of the page where you and I have been working together since at least February. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)