|
That strange rogue edit [1]
Thanks for noticing that. It was done by "Jobshack", which looks like someone created an account entirely for the purpose of trolling on Talk:Parler . IHateAccounts ( talk) 03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, I was reading the discussion and thought "Hmm this statement appears to be very self contradictory, and not in character" and went to history to find your edit and saw that it didn't include that part. I wasn't sure how to sign the addition for someone else, or whether that was the appropriate move for something like that, so I felt that removal was the best choice. Someone recently edited one of my comments on a different discussion page (Was quickly caught and fixed by GorillaWarfare, for which I am very thankful) so I have been on the lookout for it happening elsewhere. NonReproBlue ( talk) 03:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Since I started writing about the death of black people at the hands of the police on Wikipedia it is clear that has made some people uncomfortable, and I have had dozens of personal threats on my talk page. This is serious business, and users hiding information about the police with "blue" in their username... well let's just say that is a huge red flag. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but please... do not remove that critical piece of information again without first discussing it on the talk page. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not that I owe you an explanation, but perhaps if it will ease your mind, non repro blue refers to non reproducing blue, the ink or pencil color you use in design so that the original sketch marks don't show when you make copies. It is a reference the unseen work that we, as editors, do to keep this encyclopedia running. I do not appreciate your strident refusal to assume good faith and the unacceptable personal attacks you have now repeatedly levied against me. I ask you to strike your aspersions and desist from further attacks or I will take this to the proper forum, as your behavior is absolutely unacceptable. I will say, for a third time, and as recognized by another editor, I did not "remove" any information. I rewrote a section that used unencyclopedic language and did not accurately represent the sources. That section is still there, and now accurately represents the sources. Your failure to recognize that is not my fault. NonReproBlue ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/not sure, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
GeneralNotability ( talk) 14:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Hipal ( talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
nableezy - 22:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Have you used any other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 22:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am guessing you are here because of Nishidani (as they seemingly accused me of this yesterday)? Honestly I am losing patience at being accused, without evidence, of misconduct. If you have an issue with an edit I made, we can discuss it. If you, or they, think I am a sockpuppet (I am not), feel free to re-open the investigation started by Colinmcdermott
here, and bring whatever evidence you think you have. I would welcome the vindication. Otherwise, I would request that you, and any friends you may have, please leave me alone. I attempted to follow all policies to the best of my abilities, I would ask that you, and others, do the same, including
WP:NPA.
NonReproBlue (
talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, Im here because of myself. I also have not attacked you once, making the NPA link especially odd. But sure, will leave you alone until an SPI is filed. nableezy - 18:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Mark Hyman (doctor). Thank you. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 03:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
-
Slatersteven, if you look a little deeper you should see that I have in fact been trying to make changes to reach a point of compromise, and still keep getting reverted, but perhaps that is still edit warring? I will do my best to desist. But I have to ask, why am I the only one receiving this message, and not also the person who is reverting my edits on multiple pages? I would also point out (on a separate note) that you and I seem to interpret what is being said differently. The AP piece discusses how the language evolved over the day, including both those words, but does not say that those were the two primary words the media were "settling" on. That comes from the opinion piece, which is the one that states (and opinionatedly critiques) that media have "settled" on those two words. Contrarily, if the AP piece can be read to support this statement, it renders the opinion piece unnecessary. Why insist on keeping subpar sources when they are either unnecessary or incorrectly attributed?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Compromise is reached in the talk page, and "compromise" is not a justification for edit warring.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Understandable, and I will take that into account in future. I was mistakenly under the impression that "making a bold edit as a compromise or middle ground" was an encouraged behavior. It would appear that I was wrong, and if so I apologize. But that wasn't the question I asked. Why was I singled out, when the other editor is also repeatedly reverting me
and I am the one who dropped the stick elsewhere?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- He reverted 3 times, you breached
wp:3rr by reverting (yes removing content added by another user is a revert) 5 times (or 4 if I am being super generous). You breached a policy, he did not.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it is clear that I did not fully understand the policy. I will have to more intimately acquaint myself with its specifics. NonReproBlue ( talk) 12:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- He reverted 3 times, you breached
wp:3rr by reverting (yes removing content added by another user is a revert) 5 times (or 4 if I am being super generous). You breached a policy, he did not.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Understandable, and I will take that into account in future. I was mistakenly under the impression that "making a bold edit as a compromise or middle ground" was an encouraged behavior. It would appear that I was wrong, and if so I apologize. But that wasn't the question I asked. Why was I singled out, when the other editor is also repeatedly reverting me
and I am the one who dropped the stick elsewhere?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Compromise is reached in the talk page, and "compromise" is not a justification for edit warring.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Hola - I just responded to you on the Elvis talk page, hopefully you can check it out. ClearSeawater ( talk) 01:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm hoping we can get some closure on this soon ClearSeawater ( talk) 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
|
That strange rogue edit [1]
Thanks for noticing that. It was done by "Jobshack", which looks like someone created an account entirely for the purpose of trolling on Talk:Parler . IHateAccounts ( talk) 03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, I was reading the discussion and thought "Hmm this statement appears to be very self contradictory, and not in character" and went to history to find your edit and saw that it didn't include that part. I wasn't sure how to sign the addition for someone else, or whether that was the appropriate move for something like that, so I felt that removal was the best choice. Someone recently edited one of my comments on a different discussion page (Was quickly caught and fixed by GorillaWarfare, for which I am very thankful) so I have been on the lookout for it happening elsewhere. NonReproBlue ( talk) 03:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Since I started writing about the death of black people at the hands of the police on Wikipedia it is clear that has made some people uncomfortable, and I have had dozens of personal threats on my talk page. This is serious business, and users hiding information about the police with "blue" in their username... well let's just say that is a huge red flag. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but please... do not remove that critical piece of information again without first discussing it on the talk page. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not that I owe you an explanation, but perhaps if it will ease your mind, non repro blue refers to non reproducing blue, the ink or pencil color you use in design so that the original sketch marks don't show when you make copies. It is a reference the unseen work that we, as editors, do to keep this encyclopedia running. I do not appreciate your strident refusal to assume good faith and the unacceptable personal attacks you have now repeatedly levied against me. I ask you to strike your aspersions and desist from further attacks or I will take this to the proper forum, as your behavior is absolutely unacceptable. I will say, for a third time, and as recognized by another editor, I did not "remove" any information. I rewrote a section that used unencyclopedic language and did not accurately represent the sources. That section is still there, and now accurately represents the sources. Your failure to recognize that is not my fault. NonReproBlue ( talk) 16:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/not sure, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
GeneralNotability ( talk) 14:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Hipal ( talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
nableezy - 22:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Have you used any other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 22:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am guessing you are here because of Nishidani (as they seemingly accused me of this yesterday)? Honestly I am losing patience at being accused, without evidence, of misconduct. If you have an issue with an edit I made, we can discuss it. If you, or they, think I am a sockpuppet (I am not), feel free to re-open the investigation started by Colinmcdermott
here, and bring whatever evidence you think you have. I would welcome the vindication. Otherwise, I would request that you, and any friends you may have, please leave me alone. I attempted to follow all policies to the best of my abilities, I would ask that you, and others, do the same, including
WP:NPA.
NonReproBlue (
talk) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, Im here because of myself. I also have not attacked you once, making the NPA link especially odd. But sure, will leave you alone until an SPI is filed. nableezy - 18:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Mark Hyman (doctor). Thank you. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 03:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
-
Slatersteven, if you look a little deeper you should see that I have in fact been trying to make changes to reach a point of compromise, and still keep getting reverted, but perhaps that is still edit warring? I will do my best to desist. But I have to ask, why am I the only one receiving this message, and not also the person who is reverting my edits on multiple pages? I would also point out (on a separate note) that you and I seem to interpret what is being said differently. The AP piece discusses how the language evolved over the day, including both those words, but does not say that those were the two primary words the media were "settling" on. That comes from the opinion piece, which is the one that states (and opinionatedly critiques) that media have "settled" on those two words. Contrarily, if the AP piece can be read to support this statement, it renders the opinion piece unnecessary. Why insist on keeping subpar sources when they are either unnecessary or incorrectly attributed?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Compromise is reached in the talk page, and "compromise" is not a justification for edit warring.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Understandable, and I will take that into account in future. I was mistakenly under the impression that "making a bold edit as a compromise or middle ground" was an encouraged behavior. It would appear that I was wrong, and if so I apologize. But that wasn't the question I asked. Why was I singled out, when the other editor is also repeatedly reverting me
and I am the one who dropped the stick elsewhere?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- He reverted 3 times, you breached
wp:3rr by reverting (yes removing content added by another user is a revert) 5 times (or 4 if I am being super generous). You breached a policy, he did not.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it is clear that I did not fully understand the policy. I will have to more intimately acquaint myself with its specifics. NonReproBlue ( talk) 12:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- He reverted 3 times, you breached
wp:3rr by reverting (yes removing content added by another user is a revert) 5 times (or 4 if I am being super generous). You breached a policy, he did not.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Understandable, and I will take that into account in future. I was mistakenly under the impression that "making a bold edit as a compromise or middle ground" was an encouraged behavior. It would appear that I was wrong, and if so I apologize. But that wasn't the question I asked. Why was I singled out, when the other editor is also repeatedly reverting me
and I am the one who dropped the stick elsewhere?
NonReproBlue (
talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Compromise is reached in the talk page, and "compromise" is not a justification for edit warring.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Hola - I just responded to you on the Elvis talk page, hopefully you can check it out. ClearSeawater ( talk) 01:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm hoping we can get some closure on this soon ClearSeawater ( talk) 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |