| Revision as of 23:27, 19 April 2012 editTvoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,638 edits →Request for reversion: not an admin, and not a revert - moving on← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 19 April 2012 edit undoProfJustice (talk | contribs)273 edits →Request for reversionNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :Thank you. Apologies if my tone came across as personal. I didn't know Tvoz was an admin and that doesn't matter as I'm not concerned with the the identity of people editing the article; just trying to keep it from spiraling out of control so more people can edit. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | :Thank you. Apologies if my tone came across as personal. I didn't know Tvoz was an admin and that doesn't matter as I'm not concerned with the the identity of people editing the article; just trying to keep it from spiraling out of control so more people can edit. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::You're welcome. Apology accepted. Keep up the good work, just becareful kicking around the new guys - it isn't much fun for us. As I said, I stopped the reverts already and we seem to creeping toward some concensus on the Talk page. Hard not to hit the undue, it's just so conveniently placed, but I'll try to control myself :) Kind Regards, ] (]) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ::You're welcome. Apology accepted. Keep up the good work, just becareful kicking around the new guys - it isn't much fun for us. As I said, I stopped the reverts already and we seem to creeping toward some concensus on the Talk page. Hard not to hit the undue, it's just so conveniently placed, but I'll try to control myself :) Kind Regards, ] (]) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Just a note to let you know that I'm not an admin, and I never claimed to be. I don't know where you got that from. My first edit last night on that section was not a revert, it was a rewrite - there is a difference. "Undo" (or the equivalent) is a revert - I did that one time, after you undid my edit without explanation. And then you did it again, after I pointed it out in edit summary and then on Talk. That's edit warring, and what we are using strong measures to eliminate. This article is hard enough to keep neutral - as you can see if you read the talk page and its archives - someone said it is like Rashomon, and I would agree - we all see a set of facts and interpret them differently. That's why we try to stick to sources and how they characterize things, rather than doing our own interpretations. Let's move on from this and work together to make a better article. Cheers. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:28, 19 April 2012
Welcome!
Hello, ProfJustice, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
An invitation to the Teahouse!
|
Hello! ProfJustice, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Misplaced Pages. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
Request for reversion
You have violated the one revert restriction at Shooting of Trayvon Martin with this edit and this edit. Please self-revert the latter edit (the former has already been reverted) or you will be blocked until such time as you agree to self-revert your edit warring. MBisanz 13:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you read my last edit? It was clearly a correction in grammar only and had no bearing on the content. In fact I refrained from making any substative changes and took the discussion to the talk page. Response? ProfJustice (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's debatable as a grammar correction. Are you going to promise to stop revert warring or be indef blocked in the future? MBisanz 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- No it isn't debatable - if so, debate it.
- Are you posting these same warnings on Tvoz's page, or is it just me getting the special treatment? ProfJustice (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't violate 1RR; Buster7 reverted your edit warring. Now the question remains. Do you agree to not violate 1RR in the future or would you prefer an indef block? MBisanz 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=488125785&oldid=488104917
- Second revert by Tvoz ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=488134753&oldid=488105581
- He didn't? (it's a she BTW). She most certainly did, in fact, she did it first, that is the ONLY reason I did (see below). Then Buster reverted it again (a third time), at which point I left it because I had already taken it to the talk page. I already refrained, your friendly advise and warnings might be better directed at your fellow admin, who should know better. But I know you are just itching to ban me now, so I swear on your mother's grave, I wouldn't dream of ever, ever reverting anything again, cross my heart and hope to die. Now can I go, lord and master of all wikipedia?
ProfJustice (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Apologies if my tone came across as personal. I didn't know Tvoz was an admin and that doesn't matter as I'm not concerned with the the identity of people editing the article; just trying to keep it from spiraling out of control so more people can edit. MBisanz 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Apology accepted. Keep up the good work, just becareful kicking around the new guys - it isn't much fun for us. As I said, I stopped the reverts already and we seem to creeping toward some concensus on the Talk page. Hard not to hit the undue, it's just so conveniently placed, but I'll try to control myself :) Kind Regards, ProfJustice (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)