Master of Puppets (talk | contribs) →ARBPIA warning: warning |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
:I would strongly recommend self-reverting your edit and demonstrating good faith. While I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia, a revert of another user's addition - unless it's blatant, obvious vandalism - is in violation of the 1RR. Please do not make such edits without clearing them with other editors on the talk page. Consider this a final warning; if I see this happen again, I won't hesitate to block. Again, please consider self-reverting. Cheers, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
:I would strongly recommend self-reverting your edit and demonstrating good faith. While I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia, a revert of another user's addition - unless it's blatant, obvious vandalism - is in violation of the 1RR. Please do not make such edits without clearing them with other editors on the talk page. Consider this a final warning; if I see this happen again, I won't hesitate to block. Again, please consider self-reverting. Cheers, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Notice that discretionary sanctions are possible on Arab-Israeli topics == |
|||
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;" |
|||
| [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] |
|||
| |
|||
| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision]] section of the decision page. |
|||
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> |
|||
|} This notice is being given due to your apparent violation of the [[WP:1RR]] restriction at [[Emergency Committee for Israel]], as explained elsewhere on your talk page. The notice should be considered as advice regarding your future behavior. You have not yet been blocked or sanctioned under ARBPIA, and if you are careful to obtain consensus in the future on these articles, you should not have any further problems. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:24, 3 November 2011
|
Re: AYP & DISTRICT ALIGNMENT
you must be mistaken according to the files i read LAHS did NOT pass Ayp in 2007 i dont know where your getting your sources from but there wrong!
and its Not a Constant AYP school
SECOND,
Los Alamos Changed districts in 1991 to 2AAA a THREE A SCHOOL!
in 2000 they cahnged back to 2AAAA FOUR A SCHOOL! but for X-contry and Basketball the numbers of student population didnt meet the numbers for AAAA there fore in LATE 2001 they changed in full to 2AAAA i know i have lived here for years! do u live here? cuz if u dont u have no buisness telling me that!
and stop putting those CLEAN up and CITATION NEEDED boxes on articles it looks TRASHY if u dont like the article CLEAN IT UP YOURSELF and lastly Everything on the EVHS IS ACURATE AND RAN BY THE STUDENT DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
Citations
True, True Greg sorry for removing those citation tags. However they have been restored! :) thanks for helping us along the way making EVHS a better article!!
Martinez07 Chat :) 08:52, MT 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: JFK Memorial picture on Flickr
Greg, I have changed the license of the picture you commented on to one that is compatible with what you are planning to use the picture for. You are welcome to use it! Please let me know if you need perhaps a higher resolution version or a re-scan (as this picture was scanned from a B&W negative). Again, here's the image link: [1].
Lynn Bjorklund
I created a very small stub article for Lynn Bjorklund. I would like to ask other opinions on both her and Steven Preeg, but I think they could both qualify under low notability. I found an LA Times article where they interview Preeg as a "Hollywood Wizard" for his work on "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and it mentions some of his other work. At this point I'd say he could meet it because of other articles that I've found about him along with the win by his special effects team. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is a blog a reliable source for the first sentence you added? And why isn't the second sentence sourced at all? Please see WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please look at the latest edits to the article. The blog is only one source that I gave. There are other citations I provided to support that paragraph, including one from CampaignMoney.com which gets its data directly from the FEC. Both sentences are explicitly sourced. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- CampaignMoney.com doesn't support the statement that 2/3 of ECI's funds came from Loeb. In addition, it is a primary source; we should be using secondary sources.
- Finally, you haven't explained why the blog at ThinkProgress.org is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- CampaignMoney.com says exactly how much money Loeb gave ECI: $100,000. I've added another link to the article citing how much money EIC took in during the 2010 cycle: $152,475. I trust you can do the division yourself. Like I noted before, CampaignMoney.com gets its information from the FEC; ergo it is not a primary source but a secondary source. I think the ThinkProgress link constitutes a reliable source in this instance for several reasons. One is that the author of the article at ThinkProgress is a reputable journalist who has worked at numerous established news organizations. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
November 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Emergency Committee for Israel. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are in danger of violating 3rr at Emergency Committee for Israel. Please stop edit warring. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- This warning is not appropriate and falsely characterizes my actions. My most recent edit [2] to ECI was meant to find a middle ground between opposing viewpoints by including in additional information that was not in the original edit in accordance with the arguments set forth in the talk page. This change was an attempt to resolve disputes and therefore did not constitute edit warring. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that Emergency Committee for Israel, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. That means that an editor can make only one revert in a 24-hour period.
For more information about reverts, please see WP:3RR. For more information about the restrictions that apply to articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- As noted above, the edit I made was not a "revert" and therefore cannot be in violation of the 3RR. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, this article is actual subject to WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restriction. So please revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to the WP:ANEW board. And a revert is not a wholesale revision of another's work (using the undo or rollback tool) but removing another editor's work in whatever form (partially, fully). Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Authentic attempts to resolve editorial disputes on the talk page and improve the article by addressing people's stated concerns are not edit wars but part of the organic process of improving wikipedia. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I offered you the chance to self-revert but because you refused to listen I've reported you to WP:ANEW here: [3] Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Authentic attempts to resolve editorial disputes on the talk page and improve the article by addressing people's stated concerns are not edit wars but part of the organic process of improving wikipedia. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, this article is actual subject to WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restriction. So please revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to the WP:ANEW board. And a revert is not a wholesale revision of another's work (using the undo or rollback tool) but removing another editor's work in whatever form (partially, fully). Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whose rules you've been reading, Greg, but Wikipedia's got some very bright line rules about what a revert is, and you've broken 1RR. I join Plot Spoiler in recommending that you self-revert before you are blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
ARBPIA warning
Technically, you have broken the WP:1RR at Emergency Committee for Israel. You can try to respond at WP:AN3#User:Greg Comlish reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: ) and promise to stop reverting this article. If another admin sees the violation first, it may already be too late. Your motivations in making these edits are irrelevant to the process of counting reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would strongly recommend self-reverting your edit and demonstrating good faith. While I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia, a revert of another user's addition - unless it's blatant, obvious vandalism - is in violation of the 1RR. Please do not make such edits without clearing them with other editors on the talk page. Consider this a final warning; if I see this happen again, I won't hesitate to block. Again, please consider self-reverting. Cheers, m.o.p 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Notice that discretionary sanctions are possible on Arab-Israeli topics
This notice is being given due to your apparent violation of the WP:1RR restriction at Emergency Committee for Israel, as explained elsewhere on your talk page. The notice should be considered as advice regarding your future behavior. You have not yet been blocked or sanctioned under ARBPIA, and if you are careful to obtain consensus in the future on these articles, you should not have any further problems. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)