Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) →Edit warring: new section |
Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) →General sanctions notice: new section |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
Your latest revert at [[quotient rule]] is the third revert of my edit within the past 24 hours. In my (non-expert) opinion, this violates [[WP:3RR]]. Please revert your own latest revert to avoid my reporting of this issue. I had already started a new section on the article's [[Talk:quotient rule#one little comma|talk page]] to avoid this. Please offer any counter arguments there instead. --[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User talk:Deacon Vorbis|talk]]) 00:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
Your latest revert at [[quotient rule]] is the third revert of my edit within the past 24 hours. In my (non-expert) opinion, this violates [[WP:3RR]]. Please revert your own latest revert to avoid my reporting of this issue. I had already started a new section on the article's [[Talk:quotient rule#one little comma|talk page]] to avoid this. Please offer any counter arguments there instead. --[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User talk:Deacon Vorbis|talk]]) 00:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== General sanctions notice == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
|||
~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 04:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:04, 3 May 2017
Please help with your competent editing
You have already reversed an infringement by Anita Rivas and inspired further improvements upon the ellipse article which is now being insistently vulgarized by John Blackburne. I see that others have already complained about his incompetent editing, so I wonder if you have already encountered him? I believe he must be permanently blocked.PseudoScientist (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the latest version is fine (your reversion of JohnBlackburne). Hopefully he will not try to revert again. I don't know exactly what the Wikipedia policy is towards external links in articles, but the link you added seems fine to me. Jrheller1 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment at Workshop page
Hi Jrheller1
I have removed this statement from the workshop. Repeating personal attacks that have already been removed from evidence one is not appropriate. Please consider this your only warning with regards to civility and personal attacks. Further actions may lead to your prohibition from the case in question.
This has been actioned as a Clerk action and as such the statement may not be included without express permission from the Arbitrators or the Clerks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Minkowski norm
Thank you for your support - you are the first one to agree with me. It is amazing - the article is about Minkowski Space but, if you dare to quote exactly what he said, there is uproar and people say you are talking nonsense! JFB80 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. In his earlier 1907 paper Minkowski showed that it is ∫ dτ not ∫ ds which must be used for Hamilton's Principle.JFB80 (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have not looked at his 1907 paper, but in his 1908 paper, he used the symbol in a way that is not used today. Specifically, he defined (where is coordinate time, not proper time). Today, always means (when using the +--- convention) or (when using -+++ convention). So minimizing the amount of proper time between two points in an object's trajectory is equivalent to minimizing the amount of spacetime distance between the two points. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jrheller1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 16:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Geodesics on an ellipsoid
Discuss and don't edit war. Inlinetext (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just see that you have opened a SPI on my account. In these circumstances I don't see how there can be any AGF discussions about this article. Inlinetext (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please stay off my talk page and confine yourself to this article's talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- With respect to your recent removal of the copyvio template, Please clarify your user status as follows - a) Are you an admin, copyright clear or OTRS agent ? if not, b) Has the copyright issue been resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent ? Also waiting it out for 3RR (gaming) will not help you when this escalates. My strikeout on the talk page is not a retraction of my copyvio complaint, far from it. Inlinetext (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please stay off my talk page and confine yourself to this article's talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Based on first edit of this account and your following me around, I am concerned that you could have edited under another account related to mathematics where I had edited, and are wikihounding me for my past edits at Wikipedia to cause me distress.Inlinetext (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relevant terms of WP:COI
It is not enough to disclose one's affiliations.
COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing
In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.
When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.
Please self-revert. Inlinetext (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Spreading titillation on talk pages in contravention of BLP
Please see this diff.
WP:BLP a core policy prohibits spreading such sensationalist titillations of living persons via Wikipedia based on worthless WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. Talk pages are not exempt. You may be blocked for such persistent disruptive editing. Inlinetext (talk)
Notice of WP:HOUND on various articles
See this and this. No reasons given and you are evading discussing your edits.
WP:HOUND states - If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.
Furthermore WMF terms of use which over-ride Community standards absolutely prohibits you for engaging in harassment, stalking or vandalism. You are also wilfully engaging in repeatedly posting back content that is clearly false or inaccurate, which false content has been inserted by a pack of paid editors who have failed to disclose on this wiki their association with Parker Conrad or the payment received for it as required by the Terms of Use. Having reinserted that content you are certainly aware of legal proceedings apparently still in progress against Parker Conrad and your restored content is liable to mislead readers. Paid Editing FAQ clearly states "Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful". Restoring the conspicuous COI template I placed clearly offends WMF's declaration of the applicable law to be followed.
For all these reasons, I am reverting you, while stating that I am always ready to discuss these matters to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and avoid edit-warring and disruption. Inlinetext (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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.
REFSPAM
Actually yes, that site is spam. It has been extensively promoted by a paid editing ring, and it's not a neutral site, it's a libertarian think tank. Feel free to link to Gutenberg orwherever if they have it, though, or upload to Wikibooks. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your latest revert at quotient rule is the third revert of my edit within the past 24 hours. In my (non-expert) opinion, this violates WP:3RR. Please revert your own latest revert to avoid my reporting of this issue. I had already started a new section on the article's talk page to avoid this. Please offer any counter arguments there instead. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
General sanctions notice
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.