This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember warning you about doing a mass revert on the acupuncture article. I realize you made a revert and then added back the parts that had been discussed and achieved consensus, but at this point the article has been stable enough with QG's edits that it's you who is fighting against the WP:STATUSQUO. I suggest that you might be going about this backwards. Instead of making a huge revert and trying to restore all the good little changes, why don't you do a series of partial reverts, supported by edit summaries, of the parts that you see as being problematic. I realize that this should have been done the other way around, and that QG's massive changes should have been supported by edit summaries, but what's done is done and you have to work with it. Also, you should probably wait a day, since your RR count is getting up there. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw a post from Adjwilley on your page yesterday, and was a little disconcerted to see it had already been archived when I went to re-read it. Your archive settings (archive after 15 hours) seem overly aggressive to me. Did you perhaps mean to set it to 15 days? Bishonen | talk 10:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
- Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Establishments. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Following up from here. We probably should have had this conversation a few months ago, but you were on break and I didn't push it. Since then you were blocked by User:Drmies for the tag-bomb war...I was out of town for that, but if I hadn't been I probably would have hit you with a WP:1RR restriction. Anyway, something's got to change. The main problems I have with your behavior are:
Number 3, I think, has been cleared up, and I don't think needs further discussion than what was said on my talk page. Number 1 is my first priority, and what I would most like to resolve in this conversation. So my question is: can you propose any solutions? I sometimes suggest that users follow a self-imposed 1RR. (It would be unofficial, on your honor, with nobody reporting you to WP:AN3 if you mess up.) Does that sound like something you'd be interested in, or do you have other suggestions? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember warning you about doing a mass revert on the acupuncture article. I realize you made a revert and then added back the parts that had been discussed and achieved consensus, but at this point the article has been stable enough with QG's edits that it's you who is fighting against the WP:STATUSQUO. I suggest that you might be going about this backwards. Instead of making a huge revert and trying to restore all the good little changes, why don't you do a series of partial reverts, supported by edit summaries, of the parts that you see as being problematic. I realize that this should have been done the other way around, and that QG's massive changes should have been supported by edit summaries, but what's done is done and you have to work with it. Also, you should probably wait a day, since your RR count is getting up there. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw a post from Adjwilley on your page yesterday, and was a little disconcerted to see it had already been archived when I went to re-read it. Your archive settings (archive after 15 hours) seem overly aggressive to me. Did you perhaps mean to set it to 15 days? Bishonen | talk 10:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
- Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Establishments. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Following up from here. We probably should have had this conversation a few months ago, but you were on break and I didn't push it. Since then you were blocked by User:Drmies for the tag-bomb war...I was out of town for that, but if I hadn't been I probably would have hit you with a WP:1RR restriction. Anyway, something's got to change. The main problems I have with your behavior are:
Number 3, I think, has been cleared up, and I don't think needs further discussion than what was said on my talk page. Number 1 is my first priority, and what I would most like to resolve in this conversation. So my question is: can you propose any solutions? I sometimes suggest that users follow a self-imposed 1RR. (It would be unofficial, on your honor, with nobody reporting you to WP:AN3 if you mess up.) Does that sound like something you'd be interested in, or do you have other suggestions? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)