Justeditingtoday (talk | contribs) Notification: listing at articles for deletion of David Dao. (TW) |
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] ([[User talk:Justeditingtoday|talk]]) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] ([[User talk:Justeditingtoday|talk]]) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== April 2017 == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:David Dao]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:05, 12 April 2017
Shouldn't we all be concerned
I hope we can all agree foreign meddling in another country's elections is not a good thing. Shouldn't we all be equally concerned about that, regardless of political party or point-of-view. Next time, the winds may change and they could try to influence the results for the other party. Sagecandor (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I generally agree - the U.S. should stop meddling in other countries elections like Iran, Venezuela, etc. That said, I'm not here for cyber-activism, I'm here to edit articles to a NPOV standard and my record removing right-wing hogwash like this [1] is unimpeachable. It's very clear you're not going to be with us much longer before the sock investigations get you, but please keep your doe-eyed crusading platitudes off my Talk page for whatever time you have left. Just think - three months from now when this meme has evaporated and the spotlight turns elsewhere, everything you've added here will be promptly trashed. Fourteen hours a day for a month, all wasted. BlueSalix (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I happen to agree with you about all parties meddling in other countries elections including those you mentioned. I didn't mean for my post to come across as doe-eyed crusading platitudes, and I'm sorry if you felt it came across to you that way. I hope and believe that all of our research to Wikipedia remains to some extent or another once we all depart this realm hopefully after a good long happy life. I truly wish you well and I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, BlueSalix. I'd like to be able to collaborate with you in a better more good faith tone in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, Sagecandor, I am what you would probably describe as "Anti-American." However, I am not an Anti-America SPA and I always fully embrace NPOV. In short, I am not here as an activist, or to right the wrongs in the world, because that's not what WP is for. It's completely WP:NOTHERE for you to solicit other editors opinions on what you're calling "foreign meddling in another country's elections." Leave your politics at the door and don't try to drum-up support based on your personal moral outrage about current events. I really don't care about current events in America at all, which probably makes me uniquely qualified to edit about them. BlueSalix (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt I was trying to solicit opinions, I was not. I was trying to make a good faith effort to reach out to you. You yourself said "I generally agree - the U.S. should stop meddling in other countries elections like Iran, Venezuela, etc." And I agreed with you about that. I'd like to be able to move forward with you, BlueSalix, and work better together with a better tone for both of us. Sagecandor (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- (1) I appreciate your attempts to professionalize your appearance from your persona's earlier edit history of a few weeks ago by using, what we in the biz call, "coherent bargaining" layered with a dripping level of niceness. And, I think this is probably an effective approach for you to use on those who have not carefully reviewed your prior edits.
- (2) I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. For the final time, the intersection or divergence of our political beliefs is irrelevant to WP.
- You're not bringing anything to the table here, so at this time I'll have to ask you stop posting to my Talk page indefinitely. BlueSalix (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay will do. Sorry we couldn't work something out. I'll try to be more gracious to you in the future. Have a good day and wishing you and yours health and happiness for the holiday season. Sagecandor (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt I was trying to solicit opinions, I was not. I was trying to make a good faith effort to reach out to you. You yourself said "I generally agree - the U.S. should stop meddling in other countries elections like Iran, Venezuela, etc." And I agreed with you about that. I'd like to be able to move forward with you, BlueSalix, and work better together with a better tone for both of us. Sagecandor (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, Sagecandor, I am what you would probably describe as "Anti-American." However, I am not an Anti-America SPA and I always fully embrace NPOV. In short, I am not here as an activist, or to right the wrongs in the world, because that's not what WP is for. It's completely WP:NOTHERE for you to solicit other editors opinions on what you're calling "foreign meddling in another country's elections." Leave your politics at the door and don't try to drum-up support based on your personal moral outrage about current events. I really don't care about current events in America at all, which probably makes me uniquely qualified to edit about them. BlueSalix (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I happen to agree with you about all parties meddling in other countries elections including those you mentioned. I didn't mean for my post to come across as doe-eyed crusading platitudes, and I'm sorry if you felt it came across to you that way. I hope and believe that all of our research to Wikipedia remains to some extent or another once we all depart this realm hopefully after a good long happy life. I truly wish you well and I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, BlueSalix. I'd like to be able to collaborate with you in a better more good faith tone in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:2016 United etc.
BlueSalix, please either drop the sarcasm or just step back from the article and the talk page for a while. I didn't see this article or the talk page until earlier today; I only came here because I saw that cool username of yours go by on Recent changes and I had kind of forgotten who you were. But in looking over that page it seems to me that you are running a high risk of getting blocked because of your very adversarial comments, larded with rather demeaning snipes--stuff about bowels of talk pages and get out of jail free cards, and I can probably find more without looking too hard. So please, don't get carried away even more; I saw that Neutrality already warned you and I agree. We don't need more blocks and topic bans and all that. All the best, Drmies (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, Drmies. You are an extremely reasonable person of good judgment and your request is more than sufficient to inspire me to step back from the talk page and article. Just a point of explanation, however, that my comment about a "get out of jail free card" was in response to an admin repeatedly attributing fake quotes to me [2] without receiving threats of imminent Wiki-decapitation of the type to which I've been endlessly treated for having the temerity to question the blanking of content and sources like Stanford University and The Hill and The Nation. I think, in that context, it was not a jibe or attack, but a metaphor that provided an accurate and factual description of the situation. Thank you again for your patience and willingness to discuss the situation and thank you for your comment about my username. BlueSalix (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lee Grant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Timothy Winter
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothy Winter. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Demagogue
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demagogue. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:JonTron
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:JonTron. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Regina Spektor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regina Spektor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tony Blair
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You or another contributor marked an upload of yours with an unknown author. Whilst the author may well be unknown, it's advised that uploader make a "reasonable effort" to determine if this correct, and that as much information as possible is provided to determine if such efforts have been undertaken.
It would be appreciated if you could add additional information to the image concerned, to assist with this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sean Spicer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Spicer. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of David Dao for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Dao is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dao until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Your recent editing history at David Dao 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)