| Revision as of 04:12, 20 May 2008 editArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits Undid revision 213610318 by Jimintheatl (talk)Please do not remove warnings← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:12, 20 May 2008 edit undoArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits Undid revision 213610676 by Jimintheatl (talk)Please do not remove warningsNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Jim, if nobody else involved in a talk page discussion says that they want a section in an article, stop edit warring. You need to sway the talk page consensus before the stuff will stay in. If the consensus does not change, you'll just get reverted anyway. More importantly, you need to respect the collaborative nature of a project like WP and stop trying to implement changes by brute force. ] (]) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | Jim, if nobody else involved in a talk page discussion says that they want a section in an article, stop edit warring. You need to sway the talk page consensus before the stuff will stay in. If the consensus does not change, you'll just get reverted anyway. More importantly, you need to respect the collaborative nature of a project like WP and stop trying to implement changes by brute force. ] (]) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == May 2008 == | |||
| ] Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the ] of another user may be considered ]. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use ] for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our ] to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-upv --> /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 04:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Do not use edit wars in lieu of discussion == | == Do not use edit wars in lieu of discussion == | ||
Revision as of 04:12, 20 May 2008
Friendly tip: use edit summary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. TableManners 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I reverted your revert due to concerns over reliablity of the source. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you disagree, you may revert me, and I also encourage you to explain your disagreement on the articles talk page. TableManners 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Hal Turner, Sean Hannity, blah blah
I'd appreciate it if you would stop fighting over the Hal Turner article while I straighten things out. Edit warring is a blockable violation of policy, so please don't break the three-revert rule. You already have, but I won't block you as I'm presuming you didn't know about it; just don't violate it again. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right; it is important to mention the matter, because having the second largest talk show in the world's most powerful nation be a mouthpiece for a neo-Nazi is quite a noteworthy subject. I've sourced the page and added some clarifying bits; if you have anything else to add, feel free to do so.
- Oh, and in the future, should anyone revert you for a reason you can't see, don't revert back; instead, contact them. If you don't receive a response, contact me. This way it'll be easy to resolve the conflict. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You did well in not reverting Asher, keep it up. Now, I can't technically mediate because I'm involved in the matter, which could make me biased. However, speaking as an editor, I'm going to see if I can dig up enough material to create a "controversy" section or something of the sort in the Hannity article. Also, it may be worth mentioning it on the show's article, too. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly
I did not violate the 3RR. My first edit was not a revert. Even if I had, you are inserting Original Research within a BLP issue, which is not a 3RR issue. 3RR covers content, not violation of WP Policies. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Synthesis of Material is a form of Original Research, and your accusations against me on the request for editor assistance are not a good way to deal with conflict. False allegations will not serve you well. As I have had my differences with Blaxthos in the past, I still acknowledge when I have made mistakes, as he has done with me. Arzel (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for assistance
Regarding this request, I will offer what little advice I can. First off, Arzel did not violate WP:3RR, from what I can tell. I don't know if I buy his original research argument. I fail to see where there is any defamatory statements, so his WP:BLP assertion carries no weight. I am trying to wait and see what the rest of the community (of which you are a part) thinks. I advise that you make sure to avoid trolling or being disruptive. Also, I may not be the best person to ask for assistance. I have often stood up to Arzel's policy shopping, and I make no secret of my lack of good faith with regard to his arguments (ie I don't take his assertions as correct without verification). That being said, he's had valid points in the past, which I readily concede when I'm wrong. You should probably wait and see what consensus forms. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
BLP
You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP
Please quite adding information into articles (like BOR) which violate the policies of WP:BLP. Arzel (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to respect consensus
Jim, if nobody else involved in a talk page discussion says that they want a section in an article, stop edit warring. You need to sway the talk page consensus before the stuff will stay in. If the consensus does not change, you'll just get reverted anyway. More importantly, you need to respect the collaborative nature of a project like WP and stop trying to implement changes by brute force. Croctotheface (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not use edit wars in lieu of discussion
You know the "talk" aspect of pages is for dicussion purposes. If you wish to discuss some aspect, please go to talk and discuss it. Your consistant edit reverting without discussion makes it difficult to work constructively with you, as you are currently doing on the BOR page. Arzel (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I value spelling.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)