User Talk: Johnn Francis

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hello, Johnn Francis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions ↗. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
{{Div col|colwidth=30em|style=column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2;}}

Introduction ↗ and Getting started ↗

Contributing to Wikipedia ↗

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

How to edit a page ↗ and How to develop articles ↗

How to create your first article ↗

Simplified Manual of Style ↗

{{Div col end}}
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure ↗, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse ↗ to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign ↗ your messages on talk page ↗s by typing four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on my talk page, or {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  creffett (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor

Your recent edit broke most of the tables on Holy Roman Emperor ↗ - for all of them with a coat of arms, the columns don't line up with the appropriate headings. Please fix them. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

: You're correct. My mistake. It should be fixed now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

::Happens to everyone sometimes. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries please

25px|alt=Information icon|link= ↗ Hello. Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia ↗.

{{The edit-summary field}}

I noticed your recent edit to :Italian Fascism ↗ does not have an edit summary ↗. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries ↗ are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}

User contributions ↗

Recent changes ↗

Watchlist ↗s

Revision differences ↗

IRC channels ↗

Related changes ↗

New pages list ↗

Article editing history ↗

{{Div col end}}
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account ↗ you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting {{myprefs|3|check=Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary}}.
Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

:Thanks for your message. Yes, I know about this feature. In fact, I justify most of my edits, as you can see by looking at my "User contributions" page. But sometimes, I do get lazy when editing, especially when I see so many other users who generally don't justify their changes, even when they should, and so I feel tempted to do the same. But I know this is no excuse and it's still a mistake on my part. I'll try to be more careful from now on. Thanks again. --Johnn Francis (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks. Edit summaries save a lot of time for those who are in the patrolling business {{smiley}}. Cheers and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

A toast sandwich for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hey! Thanks for your contributions on Kingdom of Castile ↗. Though they're just minor edits, these types of edits still are of importance. I've been eyeing that page for some time and have been thanking users who have made improvements and significant contributions. Thanks again and happy editing! HardeesCharred (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
|}

Help me!

{{admin help-helped}}


I am really confused by the whole "autoconfirmed users" and "extended confirmed users" thing. Although I have currently made 753 edits with my account and, according to the "my preferences" page, I am a member of both "autoconfirmed users" and "extended confirmed users" groups, whenever I edit a page that is under "Pending changes protection" status, my edits are not automatically accepted as they should be, but instead need to be manually accepted by another user. This has happened to me twice now, on edits I made to the pages "Charlemagne" and "Sanskrit". What is even stranger is that, in the past, it used to work just fine. In fact, I made an edit to the page "Sanskrit" many months ago that was automatically accepted, but the one I made more recently was not. Why is it different now? Has Wikipedia policy changed? I have read the "Wikipedia:User access levels" and "Wikipedia: Protection policy" pages, and they do not mention anything new. Thank you in advance for your help.


Johnn Francis (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:Hi there, I think what is probably happening here is that a new user or an IP made an edit to a page that had PC protection and then you made an edit ''before'' that person's had been reviewed, so yours also became subject to review. It's a little bit of a weird system, but you can see how it works in the table here ↗. Does that make sense? '''<span style="color: blue;">Go</span> <span style="color: #E90004;">''Phightins''</span><span style="color: #008504;">!</span> ↗''' 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennis at the Summer Olympics ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Dixon ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breisgau ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zähringen ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to :Nam tiến ↗ you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

:Oh, okay, thank you for warning me. To be honest, and I know this not an excuse for not abiding by the rules, but I’m not actually the one who wrote that text. I simply added back an edit that was made by another contributor but was then taken down by someone else on grounds that I believe were unfounded. But promise, I will be more careful in the future. Johnn Francis (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Tinting of World Cup tables

Hello,

I was wondering whether the incorrect rendering that you perceived in my background colours for the Host and Attendance tables at FIFA World Cup ↗ might instead have been due to the fact that I deliberately chose faint colours such as "honeydew" for the different confederations to avoid distraction and obscuring the overlying text. See Wikipedia's article on Web Colors ↗.

If you can find Web Colors ↗ that render better on your screen and computer (without drowning the text), perhaps I (or you) can use them instead.

Let me know your thoughts and observations on this page (which I'll Watchlist) or on my own Talk Page.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:Hey, thanks for your comment. I was surprised at first to hear you say that the colours on the page were supposed to be visible; I thought for sure they were glitched, because the only ones ''I'' could see were lightyellow, and to some extent oldlace as well (although that one appeared quite faded: I saw it as very light yellow when it’s supposed to be more orange-like). On the other hand, azure, honeydew and lavenderblush were completely invisible to me.
:So I decided to check on several other devices and, surprise, all five colours appeared quite visible. I therefore started fiddling with my own computer (which is actually brand new) because, clearly, the problem was on my end. Changing the brightness and contrast directly on my monitor did no good, so I had to check the settings of my graphics card instead. There, adjusting the brightness and contrast finally solved the issue. I can now see all five colours distinctly. In fact, I took a look at the “Web colors” Wikipedia page that you linked, and prior to my adjustments, I could see basically all colours in the various tables ''except'' the colours in the “White colors” table, almost all of which were invisible to me, save for a handful of them that appeared very faded. After my adjustments, I can clearly distinguish all of them without any problem.
:So I’m sorry, I should have looked a little bit more into it before making my edits on the “FIFA World Cup” page instead of just assuming that it was a glitch straight away. That being said, I do think it would be preferable to use more “vibrant” colours for the different confederations, as I’m pretty certain there are plenty of people out there who are in the same situation as I was and who are probably never going to realise it (in fact, I would most likely never have realised it had you not left this comment). I would suggest using colours from any table of the “Web colors” Wikipedia page ''other than'' the “White colors” table. Maybe ''you'' can do it? But if you prefer that ''I'' do it instead, I don’t really mind. Johnn Francis (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

How's this? I fiddled with the RGB codes (both 3 and 6 digit) trying to make the colours light enough to show the blue wikilinks clearly but dark enough to show up on most systems.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:left"
|+ Total of World Cup competitions hosted by each confederation (1930–2026)<br>''{{small|Confederation and year in bold has an upcoming competition.}}''
|-
! scope="row" | Confederation
! scope="col" style=width:4em:| Total
! scope="col" class="unsortable" style="width:25em" | (Hosts) Years
|-
| style="background:#FF9"|Asian Football Confederation ↗ (AFC)
| style="text-align:center"|2
| {{flagicon|South Korea|1997}}+{{flagicon|Japan}} 2002 ↗, {{flagicon|Qatar}} 2022 ↗
|-
| style="background:#E8BC99" | Confederation of African Football ↗ (CAF)
| style="text-align:center"| 1
| {{flagicon|South Africa}} 2010 ↗
|-
| style="background:#CFF" | North, Central & Caribbean American '''''(CONCACAF ↗)'''''
| style="text-align:center"| 4
| {{flagicon|Mexico}} 1970 ↗, {{flagicon|Mexico}} 1986 ↗, {{flagicon|United States}} 1994 ↗, {{flagicon|Canada}} + {{flagicon|Mexico}} + {{flagicon|United States}} '''''2026 ↗'''''
|-
| style="background:#CF9"| South American (CONMEBOL ↗)
| style="text-align:center"| 5
| {{flagicon|Uruguay}} 1930 ↗, {{flagicon|Brazil|1889}} 1950 ↗, {{flagicon|Chile}} 1962 ↗, {{flagicon|Argentina}} 1978 ↗, {{flagicon|Brazil}} 2014 ↗
|-
| style="background:#E2E2FA"| Oceania Football Confederation ↗ (OFC)
| style="text-align:center"| 0
|  
|-
| style="background:#FFDADA"|Union of European Football Associations (UEFA ↗)
| style="text-align:center"| 11
| {{flagicon|Italy|1861}} 1934 ↗, {{flagicon|France|1830}} 1938 ↗, {{flagicon|Switzerland}} 1954 ↗, {{flagicon|Sweden}} 1958 ↗, {{flagicon|England}} 1966 ↗, {{flagicon|West Germany}} 1974 ↗*, {{flagicon|Spain}} 1982 ↗, {{flagicon|Italy}} 1990 ↗, {{flagicon|France|1974}} 1998 ↗, {{flagicon|Germany}} 2006 ↗*, {{flagicon|Russia}} 2018 ↗
|-
| ''Two competitions cancelled due to World War II ↗''
| style="text-align:center"| 0
| <s>''1942, 1946 ↗''</s>
|}

''*'' West Germany ↗ was the host of the 1994 Cup, and (reunited) Germany ↗ host to the one in 2006

Regards —— Shakescene (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, these look good. I put the settings of my computer back to what they were before to check, and I can clearly see all six colours. On a side note, I noticed that you've already edited the "FIFA World Cup" page, but you haven't added back the colours to the "Attendance" table. Is there a reason why? Should ''I'' add them back? Johnn Francis (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
::Hi, thanks,
::The reason I hadn’t yet restored the Attendance tints is that (before going through all that work), I wanted to make sure that the tints I had chosen were working properly. Now that they’re OK, I can now do that. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I just retinted and '''boldfaced''' the years in the attendance table; and adjusted the African colours as above. It was hard to find a brown or tan that would be visibly different from the other colours without making the blue-wikilinked years harder to read. —— Shakescene (talk)

¶ User:Tvx1 just reverted my tinting, which I rolled back (with our rationale and with an indirect, anonymous reference to your request); see the editing history of the World Cup page. Heaven knows I don't look forward to an edit war, or a fight on the Talk:FIFA World Cup ↗, let alone the rigmarole of a Request for Comment and !votes, but your two cents might not hurt should it bounce onto the article's Talk Page. Have a good weekend —— Shakescene (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

:This is just information not worth tinting entire cells for. Wikipedia is not a coloring book. See MOS:COLOR ↗. Bear in mind that there are readers who are partially or even fully colorblind, for whom this creates issues. This article existed decades without such tints, so why would that information suddenly become so vital only in late 2022 that it suddenly must be tinted? We don't color something that we personally consider interesting.T v ↗x ↗1 23:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Re page protection

Thanks for your report to AIV – to answer your question from there, the appropriate venue to request page protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ↗. I protected 1950 FIFA World Cup ↗ for two weeks (and did not block any of the IPs); hopefully that will curb disruptive editing. <sup>'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>'''</sup>/<sub>'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>'''</sub> 23:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

:Okay. Thanks for the quick reply and decision-making. Much appreciated! Johnn Francis (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ough (orthography) ↗

The answer to your question in the last summary is yes, but please refrain from using edit summaries as a place to hold a conversation ↗, especially at the expense of making dummy edits ↗. Talk pages are the place for it. Conversing through summaries, especially while reverting, seldom ends in an agreement and is a frequent contributor to disruptive edit wars.

When there is dispute, the standard course of action is the bold-revert-discuss cycle ↗. In this case, you made a "bold" (i.e. not discussed beforehand, with which there's nothing wrong per se) edit, I reverted it, and so what would have ideally ensued was a discussion on the talk page. I'm not without fault about this: I neglected to initiate or encourage a discussion and kept reverting, somehow thinking my summaries would be explanatory and persuasive enough to dissuade you from reverting. I was indeed completely wrong about the British pronunciation of ''thorough'', I'm sorry.

Also please refrain from reverting an entire edit (or an entire series of edits) if you object to only part of it. "not meant to be exhaustive" and "the column is 'Examples'" were in reference to your addition of "Brough, Clough", and from your summaries it doesn't appear you were objecting to my removal. (If you were, it would have been helpful to address it in the summary, though a discussion on the talk would have been even better.) I gave up on the removal because I figured it was neither here nor there, but I've removed ''Clough'' because, since not all speakers of English have /x/ in their phonological inventory, any word with syllable-final /x/ invariably has an alternative pronunciation with /k/, which is already accounted for by the IPAc-en notation (see WP:DIAPHONEMIC ↗).

I hope this hasn't come across as too confrontational ("biting ↗", as Wikipedians say). I'm telling you all this solely so that you'll be better equipped to deal with an editing dispute should you find yourself in one again. Nardog (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. . Genre is subjective, so you will require sources to back up your claims of genres here per WP:RS ↗, WP:OR ↗ and WP:SUBJECTIVE ↗. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Wikipedia Video games sources

This page includes a list of video games sources that are considered reliable and unreliable ↗. Please refer to this before adding sources to video game articles in the future. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

February 2026

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Resident Evil 5 ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor ''must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period''. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, regarding your edit summary here which says I am being inconsistent https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=1340852067&oldid=1340851786 ↗; Firstly, I didn't write the other articles you're referring to. Also, Resident Evil (1996 video game) ↗, Resident Evil 2 ↗ and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis ↗ are indeed the first three major releases in the series no matter which way you look at it. So the only ones that are inconsistent are Resident Evil 4 ↗, 6 and 7. However, none of them are WP:Featured article ↗s, so since the one that is different is the highest rated, you could also argue that the lower rated ones should be changed to match the formatting at Resident Evil 5. However, there's no rule that articles on Wikipedia that are related to each-other need to consistent in their wording, so neither of these arguments would reflect an enforceable rule on Wikipedia. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:Geez, I get it, edit is warring is bad, you don’t have to be aggressive or make repeated threats of blocking like that, this makes you sound like you have a personal vendetta against me, which I’m pretty sure isn’t in the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, your claim that I "repeatedly" changed the content’s back is factually incorrect : I only made ONE reversal of your edits. But fair enough, I think not requiring the various articles to be coherent is silly, but if it’s not a requirement by Wikipedia rules, I can’t argue against that. Could we AT LEAST go back to the version of the page as it was before I made my first edit? The one that says "It is a major installment in the Resident Evil series". It makes the contradiction with the other articles less apparent, and since you were the one to reinstate it, I’m assuming you were okay with that version. Please respond. Johnn Francis (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

::The first two paragraphs of my message is the standard warning template that you are officially required to post on someone's talk page before lodging a compliant about edit warring to administrators. See here: Template:Uw-3rr ↗. I didn't write it for you so don't take it personally. But as it's an official requirement to warn someone and it's the standard pre-written message, I would argue it is not aggressive and is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, officially according to Wikipedia, the edit war begins when after you revert someone's reversion. I reverted your change, then you changed it back. This counts as "repeatedly" for the purpose of WP:ANI ↗, since you tried to make the change twice. But don't feel bad. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2008 and I actually only learnt that a year or two ago when I did the same thing and was warned, as until then I believed it wasn't an edit war unless I made a reversion twice.
::We should discuss changes to the article on the article's talk page. I was only leaving the template message on your talk page as it's also an official requirement to leave it specifically on the person's talk page, rather than the talk page of the article. Personally I think that's silly but that's bureaucracy for you. The administrators here tend to be sticklers for it. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:::Okay, thank you for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. Yeah, sorry if I misjudged your previous comment by thinking it was too cold and direct, I just wasn’t aware this was standard procedure and there was a special template for that. In fact, I only got warned about edit warring once a few years back and the message the user left me sounded nothing like this, that’s why I was a bit surprised by the tone of your comment. But I’m glad all of this is clarified now.
:::Going back to the article, yeah, maybe I’ll take it to the talk page. I don’t know. I’m a bit lazy, to be honest, especially when it comes to changes like that which are, let’s face it, a bit trivial. I guess I’ll see in the next few days. In the meantime, take care. --Johnn Francis (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

::::No worries at all. Actually I think you can write a personalised message for the warning, I'm just a bit lazy too so I went with one of the templates (you can also use Template:Uw-ew ↗). Also if you don't use a template it can then be problematic if you didn't explain things completely and then the matter escalates, whereas the templates explain everything in detail.

::::And yeah, I get what you mean. It is trivial at the end of the day. I think I decided to really clarify things in the lead as just three days ago someone else changed it to say five again (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=1340374546&oldid=1340203803 ↗), and this isn't the first time this has happened. I understand why people keep changing it; It's logical to assume that 'Resident Evil 5' is the fifth major game. Originally the article mentioned how many major instalments there had been (more than five), and it stayed that way for many years, but it looks like it got changed to be more vague at some point (I may have even done that to try and stop people changing it so frequently - I don't recall). I don't watch the other Resident Evil game pages but now that you've pointed them out I consider them to be wrong. For example, Resident Evil Zero ↗ came out between 3 and 4, which means even if you only count numbered games as major instalments, Resident Evil 4 would still be the fifth one. I don't think we should only count numbered games as major instalments or releases, I'm just making a point. Anyway, I have no desire to change the other articles, it's just an observation. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! I apologize for reverting your edit, I just thought you were a bit rushing after you made it clear you wanted to hear other people's opinions first. I wouldn't mind if you decided to restore it, at least for the duration of the discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
: No worries, it's true that I do tend to rush things a little bit. I'm trying to better myself in that regard, but it's not always easy. As for the reversal, I think I'll leave the page as is until the debate is finally settled. Especially since if I were to revert your reversal, someone else might interpret this as me trying to engage in an edit war, and I don't want to take the chance.--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:: I see. Well, in that case, if people decide that you were right after all, I won’t interfere. Thanks for the answer! Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)