|
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
National Rifle Association. Your edits constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
TREKphiler
any time you're ready, Uhura 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You described my edit as "vandalism", which is super uncool. Instead of starting a revert war, you should have posted on the Talk page rather than unilaterally re-adding the disputed material. Please go comment: Talk:The_Satanic_Temple#Irrelevant_material_in_History_section.3F — Demong talk 06:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @
Demong: You deleted cited text because you disagree with it, that's vandalism. If you don't like the tone of the text edit it, don't just delete everything that doesn't fit your narrative.
Seanbonner (
talk) 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Important distinction: I disagree with its inclusion on a Wikipedia article. I also think the citations are bad sources. Please comment on the article Talk page, not here.
Your recent editing history at Lucien Greaves shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.
If the other user is reverting in bad faith, the best thing to do is to report that user.
The 3 revert rule applies to everyone in an edit war, regardless of who is in the right. Best to let others take care of it. If you'd like more information on the proper venues, let me know. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @
Rhododendrites: I'm currently trying to understand how to report the other user but am confused as I've never done it before. As you can see
Dominiusol is a brand new account whose edits have been exclusively deleting my edits on several articles and attacking me on the talk pages of those articles. Thankfully
Jim1138 stepped in to help on one page already but this behavior is happening on several pages at once.
Seanbonner (
talk) 07:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- On
Lucien Greaves I see
Dominiusol adding a bunch of [arguably overdetailed and/or a little promotional] content, which did not remove what you had previously contributed. You then
removed much of that, and then it was off to the races. That doesn't quite jibe with the idea that Diminiusol is only here to undo your work? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Rhododendrites: You are right that on Lucien Greaves Dominiusol was adding text not removing it, however if you look on the talk page you'll see that the text was there previously and we discussed it being too much like a CV and needed to be more neutral so I removed it in that context. Adding it back is "undoing" my edits so to speak. On The Satanic Temple the edits are much more obvious where massive chunks of my text were removed without citation or discussion. Again, looking at the talk page you can clearly see Dominiusol attacking me, assuming bias and claiming all of my edits were invalid. Both of these articles were very press release feeling and adding legitimate and cited details that aren't flattering isn't vandalism, it's helping make an article more more neutral. Looking at Dominiusol's contributions you can clearly see it's a new account and the only edits it's made have been to change mine. Seanbonner ( talk) 16:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- On
Lucien Greaves I see
Dominiusol adding a bunch of [arguably overdetailed and/or a little promotional] content, which did not remove what you had previously contributed. You then
removed much of that, and then it was off to the races. That doesn't quite jibe with the idea that Diminiusol is only here to undo your work? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: For my part I'm frustrated that Seanbonner seems dedicated to adding material of a negative POV and deleting very basic uncontested facts. I feel this needs some moderator intervention Dominiusol ( talk) 07:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- To me, it does look like a content dispute (i.e. not a matter of a user out to get another user). The fact that both of your accounts are fairly well dedicated to this subject means any report from/by either of you will lead to scrutiny for both of you. Given you're both past WP:3RR an admin (I am not an admin btw) would be well within Wikipedia policy to block both of you. It looks like you have Jim1138's attention (and mine as well), so perhaps the best thing to do is to break down the issues on the talk page and let the article stand for now, with the understanding that it won't just be a two-person back-and-forth and concerns/suggestions will be discussed. I find TST a fascinating project, but don't feel like I have a strong opinion, so if you want a third opinion ping me. It's just a really bad idea to repeatedly add or remove the same material. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Has been PP. Setup your email. WP:ENABLEEMAIL. Preferably, use a "disposable" email address. If you reply to a wiki email, the receiver will get your true email address. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk)
- @ Jim1138: Email set up. Thank you. Seanbonner ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Good refs are wp:BRD and wp:DR Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Ultimately the body of affiliated Church of Satan "Satanists" is a small one, with conservative estimates running as little as three hundred (Boulware 1998: 6) to one thousand (Introvigne 1997: 80), which although disappointingly small, are much more manageable than ranges of seven thousand (Lyons 1970: 174) to ten to twenty thousand (Kahaner 1988: 68)." Mvaldemar ( talk) 10:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Mvaldemar:I didn't delete it, I checked your citation and found that you misquoted it, so I corrected it then looked up the sourced and added the additional information, I detailed all of that on the talk page. Seanbonner ( talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't delete reliable academic sources.
Mvaldemar (
talk) 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So weird, I feel like I've been telling you that all day. Seanbonner ( talk) 12:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Church of Satan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)- @ Oshwah: Thank you! I've been waiting for an editor to step in all day. I've been posting on the talk page and the other user is ignoring comments and continuing to delete cited sources and information. Please help. Seanbonner ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's not start an edit war again. Please explain what was wrong with my edit. Mvaldemar ( talk) 09:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Mvaldemar: Please don't litter up my user page, take this discussion to the talk page of the article where it is appropriate. Seanbonner ( talk) 09:41, 19 November 2017 (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 blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |
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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
National Rifle Association. Your edits constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
TREKphiler
any time you're ready, Uhura 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You described my edit as "vandalism", which is super uncool. Instead of starting a revert war, you should have posted on the Talk page rather than unilaterally re-adding the disputed material. Please go comment: Talk:The_Satanic_Temple#Irrelevant_material_in_History_section.3F — Demong talk 06:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @
Demong: You deleted cited text because you disagree with it, that's vandalism. If you don't like the tone of the text edit it, don't just delete everything that doesn't fit your narrative.
Seanbonner (
talk) 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Important distinction: I disagree with its inclusion on a Wikipedia article. I also think the citations are bad sources. Please comment on the article Talk page, not here.
Your recent editing history at Lucien Greaves shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.
If the other user is reverting in bad faith, the best thing to do is to report that user.
The 3 revert rule applies to everyone in an edit war, regardless of who is in the right. Best to let others take care of it. If you'd like more information on the proper venues, let me know. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @
Rhododendrites: I'm currently trying to understand how to report the other user but am confused as I've never done it before. As you can see
Dominiusol is a brand new account whose edits have been exclusively deleting my edits on several articles and attacking me on the talk pages of those articles. Thankfully
Jim1138 stepped in to help on one page already but this behavior is happening on several pages at once.
Seanbonner (
talk) 07:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- On
Lucien Greaves I see
Dominiusol adding a bunch of [arguably overdetailed and/or a little promotional] content, which did not remove what you had previously contributed. You then
removed much of that, and then it was off to the races. That doesn't quite jibe with the idea that Diminiusol is only here to undo your work? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Rhododendrites: You are right that on Lucien Greaves Dominiusol was adding text not removing it, however if you look on the talk page you'll see that the text was there previously and we discussed it being too much like a CV and needed to be more neutral so I removed it in that context. Adding it back is "undoing" my edits so to speak. On The Satanic Temple the edits are much more obvious where massive chunks of my text were removed without citation or discussion. Again, looking at the talk page you can clearly see Dominiusol attacking me, assuming bias and claiming all of my edits were invalid. Both of these articles were very press release feeling and adding legitimate and cited details that aren't flattering isn't vandalism, it's helping make an article more more neutral. Looking at Dominiusol's contributions you can clearly see it's a new account and the only edits it's made have been to change mine. Seanbonner ( talk) 16:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- On
Lucien Greaves I see
Dominiusol adding a bunch of [arguably overdetailed and/or a little promotional] content, which did not remove what you had previously contributed. You then
removed much of that, and then it was off to the races. That doesn't quite jibe with the idea that Diminiusol is only here to undo your work? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: For my part I'm frustrated that Seanbonner seems dedicated to adding material of a negative POV and deleting very basic uncontested facts. I feel this needs some moderator intervention Dominiusol ( talk) 07:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- To me, it does look like a content dispute (i.e. not a matter of a user out to get another user). The fact that both of your accounts are fairly well dedicated to this subject means any report from/by either of you will lead to scrutiny for both of you. Given you're both past WP:3RR an admin (I am not an admin btw) would be well within Wikipedia policy to block both of you. It looks like you have Jim1138's attention (and mine as well), so perhaps the best thing to do is to break down the issues on the talk page and let the article stand for now, with the understanding that it won't just be a two-person back-and-forth and concerns/suggestions will be discussed. I find TST a fascinating project, but don't feel like I have a strong opinion, so if you want a third opinion ping me. It's just a really bad idea to repeatedly add or remove the same material. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Has been PP. Setup your email. WP:ENABLEEMAIL. Preferably, use a "disposable" email address. If you reply to a wiki email, the receiver will get your true email address. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk)
- @ Jim1138: Email set up. Thank you. Seanbonner ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Good refs are wp:BRD and wp:DR Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Ultimately the body of affiliated Church of Satan "Satanists" is a small one, with conservative estimates running as little as three hundred (Boulware 1998: 6) to one thousand (Introvigne 1997: 80), which although disappointingly small, are much more manageable than ranges of seven thousand (Lyons 1970: 174) to ten to twenty thousand (Kahaner 1988: 68)." Mvaldemar ( talk) 10:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Mvaldemar:I didn't delete it, I checked your citation and found that you misquoted it, so I corrected it then looked up the sourced and added the additional information, I detailed all of that on the talk page. Seanbonner ( talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't delete reliable academic sources.
Mvaldemar (
talk) 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So weird, I feel like I've been telling you that all day. Seanbonner ( talk) 12:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Church of Satan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)- @ Oshwah: Thank you! I've been waiting for an editor to step in all day. I've been posting on the talk page and the other user is ignoring comments and continuing to delete cited sources and information. Please help. Seanbonner ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's not start an edit war again. Please explain what was wrong with my edit. Mvaldemar ( talk) 09:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ Mvaldemar: Please don't litter up my user page, take this discussion to the talk page of the article where it is appropriate. Seanbonner ( talk) 09:41, 19 November 2017 (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 blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |
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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)