|
Hi Sal at PV! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
If a post has been replied to you should not move or edit it, you should post a new reply. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
And you certainly should never change an other users posts or the date they posted it as you did here [ [1]], this now may be taken as a warning. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Sal:
You might see a ping from me in your notice box: you can disregard it. I pinged you initially about some serious concerns I initially had regarding your RfC at Talk:Project Veritas. It seemed to me that you had left out important sources from your prompt and I felt that was entirely inappropriate. However, this concern arose out of a technical error: I was comparing the dates of revisions in the article to the date that your prompt was labelled as having been made. However, at some point you seem to have edited that prompt, replacing the old timestamp with a new one, thus making the apparent date an erroneous one for my purposes, and throwing off my conclusions as to what was in the article when you started the RfC. I have since removed the post in question, since it had not been up long enough to be replied to/influence discussion. Sorry for the mistake and the needless ping. Happy editing. Snow let's rap 11:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Snow Rise: No worries. I added the newer timestamp in order to extend the RfC, which had been about to end.
- On a personal note, while I'm obviously and openly here to advance Project Veritas's interests on Wikipedia, I've been doing my best to do so with respect for Wikipedia's content and behavior policies, including NPOV. Skepticism is understandable, but the assumption of good faith should be extended to everyone, including me. Thanks, Sal at PV ( talk) 12:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct, and for what it is worth, I have typically found that, as a class, professional COI editors of late tend to be quite mindful of the rules. Some on this project would rather we banned the involvement of such editors entirely, but my perspective is that I would rather have interested parties operating transparently as you are doing, rather than encourage private parties to choose between violating our policies and just not having access to our processes. But in any event, apologies again for the inconvenience. Snow let's rap 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Will you please stop altering or removing posts that have been replied to. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 23 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. — Newslinger talk 02:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff going on, so I wanted to make sure you are personally doing well. Please stay healthy and safe! :) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Sal at PV! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
If a post has been replied to you should not move or edit it, you should post a new reply. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
And you certainly should never change an other users posts or the date they posted it as you did here [ [1]], this now may be taken as a warning. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Sal:
You might see a ping from me in your notice box: you can disregard it. I pinged you initially about some serious concerns I initially had regarding your RfC at Talk:Project Veritas. It seemed to me that you had left out important sources from your prompt and I felt that was entirely inappropriate. However, this concern arose out of a technical error: I was comparing the dates of revisions in the article to the date that your prompt was labelled as having been made. However, at some point you seem to have edited that prompt, replacing the old timestamp with a new one, thus making the apparent date an erroneous one for my purposes, and throwing off my conclusions as to what was in the article when you started the RfC. I have since removed the post in question, since it had not been up long enough to be replied to/influence discussion. Sorry for the mistake and the needless ping. Happy editing. Snow let's rap 11:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Snow Rise: No worries. I added the newer timestamp in order to extend the RfC, which had been about to end.
- On a personal note, while I'm obviously and openly here to advance Project Veritas's interests on Wikipedia, I've been doing my best to do so with respect for Wikipedia's content and behavior policies, including NPOV. Skepticism is understandable, but the assumption of good faith should be extended to everyone, including me. Thanks, Sal at PV ( talk) 12:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct, and for what it is worth, I have typically found that, as a class, professional COI editors of late tend to be quite mindful of the rules. Some on this project would rather we banned the involvement of such editors entirely, but my perspective is that I would rather have interested parties operating transparently as you are doing, rather than encourage private parties to choose between violating our policies and just not having access to our processes. But in any event, apologies again for the inconvenience. Snow let's rap 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Will you please stop altering or removing posts that have been replied to. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 23 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. — Newslinger talk 02:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff going on, so I wanted to make sure you are personally doing well. Please stay healthy and safe! :) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)