</div>
</div>
<!– Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 –>
<!– Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 –>
== [[The Secret Agent (2025 film)]] Edit War ==
There is a discussion on talk page, please talking is better than keep reverting.
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ”'[[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 ”'[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]]”’ to work toward creating a version of the page that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|how this is accomplished]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] such as a [[WP:Third opinion|third opinion]]. In some cases, you may wish to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]] while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
”’If you continue edit warring, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] Wikipedia”’—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor ”must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!– Template:uw-3rr –>–[[User:PepGuardi|PepGuardi]] ([[User talk:PepGuardi|talk]]) 14:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Please stop edit war, there is a discussion I opened on talk page
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px]] Hello. You appear to be repeatedly [[Help:Reverting|reverting or undoing]] other editors’ contributions. Please be aware that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|loss of editing privileges]]. <!– Template:uw-3rr-alt –>
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you’ve significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I’m Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:Algerian submission for Academy Awards. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Please could you stop introducing arbitrary decade splits into award navigational boxes, these are unnecessary. —woodensuperman 11:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Unnecessary according to which rules? Most of these awards infoboxs were randomly split in group of years, while films were just piled. These edits were a part of my massive update on the Academy Awards for Best International Feature Film related pages…
- I can’t really understand your take, please enlighten me @Woodensuperman Martineden83 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- It’s just completely arbitrary to split by decades. Splitting forces uneven groups. There is no need to split at all, as the year is shown in parentheses after each film. We stopped doing this in filmography navboxes years (decades?) ago. —woodensuperman 11:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Arbitrary according to who? “Uneven groups”? Some of these countries have +40 films submissions, pilling them together is confusing.
- I can agree with this argument for filmmakers, since most of them don’t release films every single year, but these countries are submitting films every singe year!
- Reverting 100+ pages, imposing what you think is good or not, without any discussion in talk pages is actually arbitrary!
- If you are not providing any rules regarding your “take”, i will have to revert everything. Peace! @Woodensuperman Martineden83 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- See the WP:BRD cycle. The splits are your bold move, I’m having to revert the mess you’ve made. It’s clearly arbitrary. Why split 1969 away from 1970, or 1999 from 2000 purely based on decade, when they are chronologically adjacent? You might as well make the split between 1983 and 1984, which is just as arbitrary. And 40+ articles is not a particularly large size for a group in a navbox. There is no justification to split these whatsoever, particularly by decade, when you end up with one or two in some decades as not every country submits films every single year, despite your assertations otherwise. I mean, what’s the point of this? —woodensuperman 12:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- You were never seeking consensus @Woodensuperman, hahaha. I just can’t, and i will not lose my time with this anymore.
- Futile arguments regarding the decades, 1999 belongs to the 1990s not to 2000s. Greenland was updated since all of the 100 other navboxs were too, but i guess you already know that.
- But go on with the reverts, i’m guessing you are desperate for those 100k user contributions. Martineden83 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I can’t see that you sought consensus to add the arbitrary decade splits in the first place. —woodensuperman 12:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- See the WP:BRD cycle. The splits are your bold move, I’m having to revert the mess you’ve made. It’s clearly arbitrary. Why split 1969 away from 1970, or 1999 from 2000 purely based on decade, when they are chronologically adjacent? You might as well make the split between 1983 and 1984, which is just as arbitrary. And 40+ articles is not a particularly large size for a group in a navbox. There is no justification to split these whatsoever, particularly by decade, when you end up with one or two in some decades as not every country submits films every single year, despite your assertations otherwise. I mean, what’s the point of this? —woodensuperman 12:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- It’s just completely arbitrary to split by decades. Splitting forces uneven groups. There is no need to split at all, as the year is shown in parentheses after each film. We stopped doing this in filmography navboxes years (decades?) ago. —woodensuperman 11:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a discussion on talk page, please talking is better than keep reverting.
Your recent editing history 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.–PepGuardi (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Please stop edit war, there is a discussion I opened on talk page
Hello. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors’ contributions. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in the loss of editing privileges.
