Hi, I'm replying to your question, "Does the VE work on Safari?". It does, and if you're using Safari but can't see the edit tab, check that it's enabled on your account (instructions at the top of Wikipedia:VisualEditor are up-to-date) or that you are editing an article or a user page (it's not an available option on other pages, like talk pages). Best, -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish on Constantinople, though. The tags you're repeatedly removing are legitimate requests for citations. Since your edits have now been reverted three times, by two different editors, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page before doing anything else. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Sleath56. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sleath. Allow me to write this on your private page, independently of my formal edit request on the Coronavirus Wuhan outbreak article. One incidental reason why I am concerned about highlighting xenophobia in the Coronovirus outbreak article is that the stereotype is reinforced that Chinese individuals as well as their government are more concerned about their public image ("losing face") than they are about other people dying. If you then read the cited sources it becomes even more problematic: Chinese businessmen are worried about losing money, critics are cited that the Chinese are to blame for eating wildlife, etc. Stereotype after stereotype. Given the deadly threat, I prefer to reinforce positive messages: the Chinese government have admitted their mistake and are now being pro-active, much to the relief and admiration of the outside world. I am not going to revisit your page, so please read this, delete this and do not take the trouble to reply. 31.49.112.219 ( talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Sleath, I just wanted to say a big thank you (well, to everyone that stayed on the ball really, but I felt that you were out there taking a lot of flak), and that I'm really glad the coronavirus outbreak move has finally gone through :D! I did see that you'd pinged me, but I really don't have much energy for the procedural / conflictual side of things here, else I might have chimed in (it did feel a bit like I was leaving you out in the rain a bit though, so I was sorry about that). My making the point / a ruckus that the article shouldn't have been left at its old title for so long was exerting myself far more than I'd usually be willing to already :P.
Well, happy that things have finally turned out right, and might now actually get on / back to editing the article itself :P. Regards, and all the best, Sean Heron ( talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be trying to edit collaboratively, but the end result is that you are making it very hard for other editors and you to work together to improve the article.
You started a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread a little more than two weeks ago, and I began to try to moderate the discussion. All of the versions of rules that I have used say to be civil and concise. You have not been concise. I have been patient. Perhaps I have been too patient, because I was allowing back-and-forth discussion that was civil but unproductive. I have always stressed the need to be concise, except when I was allowing back-and-forth. So then I asked for one-paragraph summaries, and you provided a complaint about section bloat, while the other editor called for an all-inclusive article, neither of which was specific. So then I again asked to identify three specific sections to be improved, and again said to comment on content, not contributors. The back-and-forth and criticism of the other editor continued, and I had to collapse it twice. So then I failed the discussion, and said that perhaps the least wrong way was to go to WP:ANI. At this point you posted to the DRN talk page, which was a reasonable place to post, saying that you took issue with the closure and continued to hope that moderation would be able to resolve the dispute without WP:ANI. I re-opened the discussion and asked both parties to respond, again. The other editor has responded. You have not responded within 48 hours after I re-opened the dispute. However, I see that you have been editing the article, and that you have been editing the article with sufficient persistence that you have been (rightly or wrongly) cautioned for edit-warring. The other editor, User:FobTown, has replied to my re-opening. You have edited the article, but have not replied to my statement.
Do you want moderated discussion, or have you decided to go back to just editing the article? If you have decided that you are no longer taking part in moderated discussion, you should have the courtesy to let me know that you are willing to have the case closed (after you complained about its closure) again. As it is, it appears that you are trying to interfere with collaborative editing, by trying to use moderated discussion as a convenient way to get the moderator to agree with you, but then ignoring the moderator. That is probably not your intention, but it is the appearance. So please either reply to my sixth statement, or state that you prefer to discuss matters on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
A glass of Thandai for you | ||
Here is a glass of
Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional
Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of
almonds,
fennel seeds,
watermelon kernels,
rose petals,
pepper,
vetiver seeds,
cardamom,
saffron,
milk and
sugar. Thank you for all your editing efforts with 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Here is something to keep you recharged, cheers.
DTM (
talk)
09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Please see proposal by Ohconfucius - seeking your thoughts and consensus on this issue. Acalycine ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm replying to your question, "Does the VE work on Safari?". It does, and if you're using Safari but can't see the edit tab, check that it's enabled on your account (instructions at the top of Wikipedia:VisualEditor are up-to-date) or that you are editing an article or a user page (it's not an available option on other pages, like talk pages). Best, -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish on Constantinople, though. The tags you're repeatedly removing are legitimate requests for citations. Since your edits have now been reverted three times, by two different editors, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page before doing anything else. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Sleath56. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sleath. Allow me to write this on your private page, independently of my formal edit request on the Coronavirus Wuhan outbreak article. One incidental reason why I am concerned about highlighting xenophobia in the Coronovirus outbreak article is that the stereotype is reinforced that Chinese individuals as well as their government are more concerned about their public image ("losing face") than they are about other people dying. If you then read the cited sources it becomes even more problematic: Chinese businessmen are worried about losing money, critics are cited that the Chinese are to blame for eating wildlife, etc. Stereotype after stereotype. Given the deadly threat, I prefer to reinforce positive messages: the Chinese government have admitted their mistake and are now being pro-active, much to the relief and admiration of the outside world. I am not going to revisit your page, so please read this, delete this and do not take the trouble to reply. 31.49.112.219 ( talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Sleath, I just wanted to say a big thank you (well, to everyone that stayed on the ball really, but I felt that you were out there taking a lot of flak), and that I'm really glad the coronavirus outbreak move has finally gone through :D! I did see that you'd pinged me, but I really don't have much energy for the procedural / conflictual side of things here, else I might have chimed in (it did feel a bit like I was leaving you out in the rain a bit though, so I was sorry about that). My making the point / a ruckus that the article shouldn't have been left at its old title for so long was exerting myself far more than I'd usually be willing to already :P.
Well, happy that things have finally turned out right, and might now actually get on / back to editing the article itself :P. Regards, and all the best, Sean Heron ( talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be trying to edit collaboratively, but the end result is that you are making it very hard for other editors and you to work together to improve the article.
You started a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread a little more than two weeks ago, and I began to try to moderate the discussion. All of the versions of rules that I have used say to be civil and concise. You have not been concise. I have been patient. Perhaps I have been too patient, because I was allowing back-and-forth discussion that was civil but unproductive. I have always stressed the need to be concise, except when I was allowing back-and-forth. So then I asked for one-paragraph summaries, and you provided a complaint about section bloat, while the other editor called for an all-inclusive article, neither of which was specific. So then I again asked to identify three specific sections to be improved, and again said to comment on content, not contributors. The back-and-forth and criticism of the other editor continued, and I had to collapse it twice. So then I failed the discussion, and said that perhaps the least wrong way was to go to WP:ANI. At this point you posted to the DRN talk page, which was a reasonable place to post, saying that you took issue with the closure and continued to hope that moderation would be able to resolve the dispute without WP:ANI. I re-opened the discussion and asked both parties to respond, again. The other editor has responded. You have not responded within 48 hours after I re-opened the dispute. However, I see that you have been editing the article, and that you have been editing the article with sufficient persistence that you have been (rightly or wrongly) cautioned for edit-warring. The other editor, User:FobTown, has replied to my re-opening. You have edited the article, but have not replied to my statement.
Do you want moderated discussion, or have you decided to go back to just editing the article? If you have decided that you are no longer taking part in moderated discussion, you should have the courtesy to let me know that you are willing to have the case closed (after you complained about its closure) again. As it is, it appears that you are trying to interfere with collaborative editing, by trying to use moderated discussion as a convenient way to get the moderator to agree with you, but then ignoring the moderator. That is probably not your intention, but it is the appearance. So please either reply to my sixth statement, or state that you prefer to discuss matters on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
A glass of Thandai for you | ||
Here is a glass of
Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional
Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of
almonds,
fennel seeds,
watermelon kernels,
rose petals,
pepper,
vetiver seeds,
cardamom,
saffron,
milk and
sugar. Thank you for all your editing efforts with 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Here is something to keep you recharged, cheers.
DTM (
talk)
09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Please see proposal by Ohconfucius - seeking your thoughts and consensus on this issue. Acalycine ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)