Hello, Jellypear,
welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our
policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. If you have not used any other accounts please disregard this notice. Thanks,
a13ean (
talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia." I have only made one minor edit which accurately clarified that a MA paper was not a PhD dissertation. I don't know why such a minor edit would suggest that I am using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. For the record this is my first and only Wikipedia account and I have never discussed wikipedia edits with anyone. To my knowledge, no one that I know even has a wikipedia account. Jellypear ( talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a long story, but the timing of your appearance into this specific content area raised some red flags with regard to an IP which was just blocked as a sock of someone named PeteK. However, since you're apparently not them, please accept my apology and welcome to wikipedia. Cheers, a13ean ( talk) 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi Jellypear! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert ( talk) 19:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for following up the Australian study. I'm impressed by the findings. hgilbert ( talk) 03:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I note you have today reverted both my and User:Binksternet's edits to this article to get your own preferred version. In general, edit warring is not a productive way to improve an article. A much better approach is set out by WP:BRD where, in the case of disagreement, a bold edit is reverted, and then discussion continues on the Talk pacge to reach consensus. It's not a rule, but I recommend it as a good MO for article editing. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! In this edit you changed the WE article to mention preparation materials. Yet I thought we agreed here that they weren't clear about that in their text; so we were passing on their ambiguity without any outright misrepresentation. What's changed? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Your re-reversion on this is against WP policy (please read WP:YESPOV and WP:INTEXT). I am not prepared to edit war over this so please reconsider after studying those documents. If you are not moved, please let me know and we can take this to dispute resolution. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas E. Matthews Community School. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: I think you are over-using the minor edit flag. Check Help:Minor Edit. For example, I think that inserting a reference is not a minor edit, even though it doesn't change the meaning of the text. M.boli ( talk) 03:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jellypear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jellypear,
welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our
policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. If you have not used any other accounts please disregard this notice. Thanks,
a13ean (
talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia." I have only made one minor edit which accurately clarified that a MA paper was not a PhD dissertation. I don't know why such a minor edit would suggest that I am using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. For the record this is my first and only Wikipedia account and I have never discussed wikipedia edits with anyone. To my knowledge, no one that I know even has a wikipedia account. Jellypear ( talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a long story, but the timing of your appearance into this specific content area raised some red flags with regard to an IP which was just blocked as a sock of someone named PeteK. However, since you're apparently not them, please accept my apology and welcome to wikipedia. Cheers, a13ean ( talk) 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Jellypear! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert ( talk) 19:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for following up the Australian study. I'm impressed by the findings. hgilbert ( talk) 03:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I note you have today reverted both my and User:Binksternet's edits to this article to get your own preferred version. In general, edit warring is not a productive way to improve an article. A much better approach is set out by WP:BRD where, in the case of disagreement, a bold edit is reverted, and then discussion continues on the Talk pacge to reach consensus. It's not a rule, but I recommend it as a good MO for article editing. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! In this edit you changed the WE article to mention preparation materials. Yet I thought we agreed here that they weren't clear about that in their text; so we were passing on their ambiguity without any outright misrepresentation. What's changed? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Your re-reversion on this is against WP policy (please read WP:YESPOV and WP:INTEXT). I am not prepared to edit war over this so please reconsider after studying those documents. If you are not moved, please let me know and we can take this to dispute resolution. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas E. Matthews Community School. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: I think you are over-using the minor edit flag. Check Help:Minor Edit. For example, I think that inserting a reference is not a minor edit, even though it doesn't change the meaning of the text. M.boli ( talk) 03:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jellypear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)