User talk:DemisJohnson

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Adrian Zenz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Loksmythe (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DemisJohnson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DemisJohnson! 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

16:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and ongoing RfC

You should stop edit-warring at Adrian Zenz, particularly since the material is being discussed at the ongoing Request for Comment. Pitch in at the RfC if you’d like, but please don’t add the material back through edit-warring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS

Hi. If info is sourced from Sherdog in infoboxes, don't change it. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again sherdog is not official, According to the offical UFC stats website and his recent fight agaisnt ramos. he's 5'7 not 5'9 DemisJohnson (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to use Sherdog as an agreed and comprehensive reliable source. I ask again nicely for you to cooperate rather than disrupt.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Arman Tsarukyan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Tsarukyan

Hi DemisJohnson, Good day. Pls do not changed the sourced info as per the above page. Pls note that all mma fighters infobox info are as per Sherdog.com until the info can not be obtained in Sherdog for MMA fighters fight under many different organizations and Sherdog is a secondary source which is used by Wikipedia and UFC is primary source. Pls note that Wikipedia is about verification and not about true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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 standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]