APerson ( talk!) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Links in APL (programming language)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- APerson ( talk!) 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a response at the dispute resolution noticeboard within 24 hours concerning your position on the issue of external links, or the case may be closed for failure to respond. (Participation in dispute resolution is not required, and failure to participate will not result in any sort of sanctions, but, as noted above, may make editing difficult.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you wish, you may file a new request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not promising that it will be accepted. You might be better off to follow the advice that I gave in closing the thread, however. If you really think that there should be an exception to the guidelines of external links for APL (programming language), you may post a Request for Comments on the article talk page concerning that article. If you really think that external links should be encouraged (rather than discouraged) in article bodies in general, you may go to Village pump (policy) to discuss changing the guidelines, but I doubt that you will be likely to prevail. As to your complaint that you were not given enough time, the other participating editors did submit their responses in a timely fashion, and WP:DRN is intended for quick resolution, not extended resolution, of content issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Ununpentium, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Your paragraph is certainly some very fascinating observations, but just like before (when it was reverted once), it is still very speculative and unreferenced:
I don't feel it's my place to revert your changes, but someone might for the same reasons than earlier... Well, someone reverted your changes while I was writing this. Dhrm77 ( talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ununpentium. 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. DMacks ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Materialscientist ( talk) 22:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
APerson ( talk!) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Links in APL (programming language)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- APerson ( talk!) 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a response at the dispute resolution noticeboard within 24 hours concerning your position on the issue of external links, or the case may be closed for failure to respond. (Participation in dispute resolution is not required, and failure to participate will not result in any sort of sanctions, but, as noted above, may make editing difficult.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you wish, you may file a new request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not promising that it will be accepted. You might be better off to follow the advice that I gave in closing the thread, however. If you really think that there should be an exception to the guidelines of external links for APL (programming language), you may post a Request for Comments on the article talk page concerning that article. If you really think that external links should be encouraged (rather than discouraged) in article bodies in general, you may go to Village pump (policy) to discuss changing the guidelines, but I doubt that you will be likely to prevail. As to your complaint that you were not given enough time, the other participating editors did submit their responses in a timely fashion, and WP:DRN is intended for quick resolution, not extended resolution, of content issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Ununpentium, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Your paragraph is certainly some very fascinating observations, but just like before (when it was reverted once), it is still very speculative and unreferenced:
I don't feel it's my place to revert your changes, but someone might for the same reasons than earlier... Well, someone reverted your changes while I was writing this. Dhrm77 ( talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ununpentium. 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. DMacks ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Materialscientist ( talk) 22:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)