→Trouted: new section |
PeterTheFourth (talk | contribs) →Edit warring on Gab (social network): new section |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
{{trout}} |
{{trout}} |
||
You have been trouted for: Mistake on Gab article [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
You have been trouted for: Mistake on Gab article [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Edit warring on [[Gab (social network)]] == |
|||
Hi Ridiceo. Hopefully this is the last time this needs to be said. Consensus is very clearly against you on this page. You have said all you can say on the talk page - your insistence that the reliable sources are biased and we cannot use content from them that you dislike is not viable. Self revert, or I'm taking it to the edit warring noticeboard. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:48, 9 December 2018
Welcome!
Hello, Ridiceo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gab (social network). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, I've already discussed extensively on the issue before editing the page.
December 2018
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Tsumikiria, on December 3rd, you replied to me on Talk:Gab_(social_network). You said,
Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time.
- I sent a warning template because of the content of this comment. In this comment, you've accused me of wanting to
mass delete and doctor valid content
, as well as filibustering and attempting to whitewash an article. You've also said that I've "Contributed nothing" and have asked me to "stop further wasting everyone's time". However, in that talk page, I've not stated any plans or suggestions to mass delete or doctor valid content. In that talk page, I haven't, to my knowledge, tried to filibuster or whitewash. I've already discussed this on the talk page. Please see WP:AVOIDYOU for more information to avoid personal attacks. Also, you should see more information on WP:GF, as this can help you avoid user conflict in the future. And most of all, please focus on the content of the article, not the conduct of other users. Ridiceo (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Alert
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 recently 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 any 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.
Merely a formality as you have not been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the alert, but I am already aware of this decision. Ridiceo (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Gab Discussions
I think a pattern is starting to emerge, and a threat has been made, and my concern is that, if unchecked, first you'll get blocked and then I will be next. I agree with most everything you said, particularly the parts about refusing to build consensus, and with the additional component of using "wikipedia policy" to blocking changes he? doesn't like, but failing to explain exactly how that policy is (or should be) applied directly to the topic being discussed. Failure to respond to critical points made in discussions, insisting on using "deleted tweets" as reliable sources, without bothering to show exactly which deleted tweet that's being referred to, making additions without conversation, making deletions without substantive explanation, and now he's threatening to have you blocked. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, learn how to be a functional Wikipedia Editor, improve a few Articles that I think are important, or interesting, on subjects (particularly Gab) that I have deep (2 years constant use) knowledge of, and do not want to jeopardize these goals by getting myself involved in "drama", however I can also see the writing on the wall, and believe something has to be done about this. He's already established the core of his POV and bias ("the ONLY reason Gab is noteworthy is it's far-right User base"), and all of his actions can be attributed to that ideologically-based belief. Also he ignored my questioning of the use of click-bait headlines from Articles in the text of the Article (word-for-word), actually said he "didn't care" that the Article stated "two Jews" in a cartoon meme, when only one character was obviously Jewish (which means he doesn't care about accuracy), stated openly that he had attempted to contact a Journalist (implying that the Journalist might publish language that would support his POV in the Article), and I could probably go on with more examples. This is just of the top of my head. I could probably "dig in" and double it. I don't want to. I want to do exactly what I assume a new Wikipedia Editor is expected to do. Avoid conflict, etc... and do the work. The threat to have you blocked has compelled me to act, despite significant misgivings.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- When I attempted to put together information on the user's conduct, so that I could use it for a dispute resolution. I was hounded by two other people over an obscure rule, specifically wanting to remove said sandbox document, which had no direct links coming from my userpage. I decided I was done with that, and archived that into a file on my desktop. On the talk page for Gab, two users constantly cited that I've somehow broken WP policy. When I asked them to focus on the content, I was bombarded with even more accusations. Since the discussion was clearly going nowhere, I made a section documenting what I believe to be what was wrong with the article. They also attacked me for supposedly "filibustering" because it was "too long" for them. I've repeatedly asked them to focus on the content. I've put warning templates regarding the issue on Tsumikiria's profile, but it got removed, and the issue wasn't resolved. Ridiceo (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Trouted
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Mistake on Gab article Ridiceo (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring on Gab (social network)
Hi Ridiceo. Hopefully this is the last time this needs to be said. Consensus is very clearly against you on this page. You have said all you can say on the talk page - your insistence that the reliable sources are biased and we cannot use content from them that you dislike is not viable. Self revert, or I'm taking it to the edit warring noticeboard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)