→Note: r |
Tornado chaser (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
:::::{{re|Jytdog}} So you mean so far my editing has been ok, but are warning me not to argue endlessly against consensus? [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser#top|talk]]) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
:::::{{re|Jytdog}} So you mean so far my editing has been ok, but are warning me not to argue endlessly against consensus? [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser#top|talk]]) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::It has been OKish but alarming to the extent that you have a string of people warning you, including the involved discussion with TonyBallioni just above. You have established your direction of travel toward the cliff edge on this topic. Your editing has been pretty decent elsewhere. This is why we have topic bans. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::::It has been OKish but alarming to the extent that you have a string of people warning you, including the involved discussion with TonyBallioni just above. You have established your direction of travel toward the cliff edge on this topic. Your editing has been pretty decent elsewhere. This is why we have topic bans. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{re|Jytdog}}Tony warned me to "use talk pages more", I did, and you dolt me I am on the way to a topic ban, this is why I am confused. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser#top|talk]]) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:31, 30 January 2018
2017 May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 2018 |
Lots of Mistakes and Irrelevant Data
Hello,
The section had lots of mistakes in briefing it, i just fixed it with correct measures.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actus.zeus (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Actus.zeus: You removed references and properly referenced material, everything in wikipedia must be properly referenced, so plese don't remove references without at least using a edit summary to explain the reson fore your changes. Also, anything that you add must be properly referenced, so far you have not explained the reason for your changes or provided a reliable source (or any source) for your changes, this is why I have undid your edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Actus.zeus:. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
South Deering
I just added two sources. Please stop deleting my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C302:71A6:4C1E:7453:D311:EB09 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for pointing out my mistake, I have now restored the content. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Suzuki Swift changes
do not simply delete the modified articles. please refer the facts and figures in the cited sources. wikipedia is to provide the readers true information rather than the filtered info. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3488:CDE9:5CD8:3AB7:8D80:21A1 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are 2 problems with your edit, first you are not just stating facts, but directly saying this car should not be bought, which violates wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, also I suspect that in may be WP:UNDUE to include a section about theft in this artical, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- now i am putting the indian media news in the article. all the provided links are national dailies. please let me know the reason it should not be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3488:CDE9:5CD8:3AB7:8D80:21A1 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Your sources don't say what you wrote, the first source (hindustan times) only talks about 1 theft case which happened to be a swift, it does not say that the swift is commonly stolen. Then you talk about the theft ring that was busted, citing 2 sources, but 1 (the hindu) doesn't say anything about the swift, and the other source (daily pioneer) says 1 of the stolen cars was a swift, not that most were. You cite no sources at all for the fact that "India is known for the whole gangs involved in the theft of Maruti Swift", and while you do cite the safety features, you have no sources for the fact that thefts of the swift are increasing. You cite a hindustan times article on the car theft ring, but it only mentions that 2 of 4 stolen cars were swifts. It was an improvement when you removed the non neutral language form your edit, but you still need to have properly referenced info, see WP:V. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- now i am putting the indian media news in the article. all the provided links are national dailies. please let me know the reason it should not be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3488:CDE9:5CD8:3AB7:8D80:21A1 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
now read these sources -
the comment in article is - The gang specialised in stealing Swift cars but stole other vehicles after receiving the demand from their counterparts in northeast India and Nepal. The cars were transported from Haryana to Nagaland in containers. According to joint commissioner (crime), Alok Kumar, the gang used to dispose of the stolen vehicles by implanting the documents of total loss accidental vehicles. They also supplied these cars to dealers in Haryana and Delhi as used cars. Cops have recovered 15 Swift and Swift Dzire cars, two i20s, two Scorpios, two Innovas, two Crets and two Ciaz apart from a Tata Safari,
Source 2 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/6-burglars-arrested-scorpio-swift-and-gold-biscuit-seized/articleshow/59328459.cms search for Swift Stolen
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/snatchers-gang-busted-3-held/518173.html
search for swift
Source 3 http://www.dailypioneer.com/city/inter-state-gang--of-vehicle-lifters-busted-six-held.html search for swift
videos you can see
now do not revert. discuss and then do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3488:CDE9:5CD8:3AB7:8D80:21A1 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The only source you cite that mentions a pattern of stealing swifts (not just 1 or 2 thefts) is a source that talks about a crime ring that stole 15 swifts, the edit you made to the swift article had the same problems I pointed out in my last comment, for example you still have not provided even 1 source that says india is known for swift thefts. Even a gang that specialized in stealing swifts and stole 15 is not significant enough to be in an encyclopedia article on swifts, see WP:UNDUE. I am fine with discussing this but your repeated reinstatement of disputed content while discussion is ongoing is verging on disruptive editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Swift edit
I do not agree wiTh you. INDIA is not known for swift thefts. But the car is repeatedly stolen in India. Do you want if specifically the swift is the most stollen car then is it a valid information. I do not agree with you. I think swift stolen information is correct Lavikushi (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Lavikushi: Could you clarify what you mean? and who you are talking to (me or 2405:204:3488:cde9:5cd8:3ab7:8d80:21a1). Tornado chaser (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Vazhappally Maha Siva Temple
Hello Tornado,Iam new to wiki ,now I have added a source kindly check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyothiz (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jyothiz: You added a citation, but you put it under the content, rather than directly after the3 sentence/paragraph being sourced from it. You should move the reverence to be directly after the content you are sourcing to that reference, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome (and Kegedonce Press)
Good afternoon Tornado chaser!
Thank you for your warm welcome to Wikipedia. Also, your username is a very cool one. I used to want to be a storm chaser when I was younger.
Now, in terms of Kegedonce Press. I'll admit that it was my first edit (I'm still really new to Wikimedia as a whole) but I am in no way affiliated or are employed by or for Kegedonce Press. I just really appreciate Indigenous literature. I noticed when I was doing Wikipedia searches on Indigenous content in North America that it was asking for further information (such as secondary sources), so I did some digging and inputted some new content.
The red (unlinked) names are ones that I will approach the authors to request permission to write a Wikipedia article on them (as some of them have written works that have greatly contributed to Indigenous literature in Canada, some have even won awards). I do not work for the authors that I wish to input into the article (and create content for), but recognize the increasing need for Indigenous content on Wikipedia.
If you have any pro-tips on how to do this without appearing to have a conflict of interest, I would sincerely appreciate your input.
Cheers,
Morinjam Morinjam (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to be ok, I Looked at some of your edits and there doesn't seem to be a COI problem (not that it hurts to know the rules), feel free to ask my if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Morinjam:. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Rotaviral gastroenterits
Please don't try to fix these issues of "desired title occupied by redirect" by cut-and-paste moves. That just detroys all article history. I'll put in a request for a technical page move, and an admin will sort it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Requested [1]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Fake News Awards
An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Editing a page about myself
Hello, You kindly left me a message after I edited a page about myself. I looked on the guidelines and believe I was within right to edit the page due to the fact the article is continually being edited to include my own private information: I have a stage name and my private and legal name keeps being published. I am desperately checking the page frequently and remove it whenever I see it. But it’s upsetting me that the work I put into making the page more neutral, as stipulated by Wikipedia, by including information about my whole career and not just lengthy information about one credit, and removing private information and old photos with incorrect captions, keeps being undone. I try to rectify and it is a waste of time. What can I do? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyjk (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Amyjk: I looked at the article more and removed the supposed real name (it was not in any of the sources cited, violating WP:V), I agree that newer photos are better, but why is an old photo worse than no photo?(and what is wrong with the caption?) I think the reason you are being reverted is because self-promotional editing is so common that any editing by the subject of an article is suspicious, when editing an article about yourself, make sure to add references to reliable sourcesand to always edit in a neutral manner Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
What happened?
Where did the tornado chaser go? Oh wow. I'm blown away....Anyone that wants to challenge the "conspiracy theory" please do your own investigation like any logical person would before they open there mouths and start yapping about something they haven't a clue about. DBLUF (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I didn't think you'd have much to say to that. DBLUF (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@DBLUF:I responded on your talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Dainese Settantadue page
Hi there!
I just wanted to let you know I have published a new page on this - with much shorter new wording than the one you objected to and which hopefully now meets encylopedic criteria.
I hope I've learnt from your comments. I'm new to this. I started by editing a page but this is the first I have created to update Wikipedia.
I'm a motorcycle and rugby football enthusiast.
Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfenwick (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jackfenwick: I made a few changes to the draft page to make it sound less like an ad, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Tornado chaser: Many thanks for the guidance. I thought a generic dry description would be helpful and OK. Jackfenwick (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Female edits....
Why did you remove the word typically from the edit? Are females that do not produce eggs not females? Post menopausal, cancer survivors, etc. are All still female, no??
Feel free to message me: knowmenomicooper@gmail.com
- Looks like an accident/error on my part, thanks for fixing it. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018 - Roxy Jacenko
Hi TornadoChaser,
Thanks for your feedback on my talk page in regards to recent edits made to the Roxy Jacenko biographical wiki page.
If you had taken the time to properly examine the edit history of the page, you would see that at multiple instances, citations and references to her narcissm and her family history have been continually removed by single ip address non-registered users, believed to be owned by Roxy Jacenko or people within her business. You would know as a recent changes patroller that this actually represents wiki vandalism. These IP addresses have had messages added to their talk pages by multiple users asking them not to remove references on the page.
In future, I would ask you to refrain from reverting entire edits and marking as "vandalism" without doing proper research and to instead, if you believe an article lacks citation, mark it as such.
Thanks for your time - Tommosimmo
- @Tommosimmo: Calling someone a narcissist or any other opinionated word in wikipedia's voice is a violation of WP:NPOV, fixing NPOV violations is not vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
New section
There was a reference for it.
Please do not delete something with a credible source again.
Discretionary sanctions
You were notifed of the discretionary sanctions concerning pseudoscience back in May in this diff. Please do keep them in mind when you edit about vaccines. Thx Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Warning
Hi Tornado chaser, after looking at some of your recent edits to vaccine pages, I was considering placing you under 0RR because you appear to be reverting and not discussing controversial changes on the talk page, and your edits do not in my view adhere to NPOV as defined under the Pseudoscience case. Since you don't appear to have been sanctioned before, however, I've decided just to make Jytdog's warning above a bit more official, and remind you to discuss controversial changes on the talk page and to adhere to a neutral point of view. I've recorded this warning at the AE log. You generally do good work on Wikipedia, but this is a contentious area, and caution is advised when making any potentially controversial changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I always try to edit neutrally and avoid edit wars, so this message surprises me, but thanks for pointing this out if you think there is an issue. Where to you think I am reverting without discussing? I belive this[2][3] is the closest I have been to an edit war on a vaccine-related article, And I was not planning any more reverts without a consensus. I have just been in 2 content disputes about vaccines, this[4] one where consensus seems to be developing in my favor, and this one[5] where we seem to be reaching a compromise, these were ok right?. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni:. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the Sears one you were engaged in reverts over a multi-day period to the point where in my opinion, you were part of a slow-burning edit war on the content. It is important to remember that On National Vaccine Information Center, you reintroduced challenged material: in contentious topic areas, it is always better to discuss before restoring content, and this has a policy basis at WP:ONUS. Also from looking at the edit history there and on other pages, you use confusing edit summaries which tell absolutely nothing about what you are doing to a third-party, and that can be about contentious material: [6], [7], [8], [9].Finally, on the NPOV point, I would like to emphasize the Committee's principle in the pseudoscience case in regards to NPOV and science:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
I'm not a part of any of these disputes, but I can see why people might think you are not adhering to NPOV, and that your changes combined with the edit summaries might come off as a bit deceptive. I don't think this is your intent, which is why I just gave a warning, and I think you want to engage in the process of developing the articles. My warning is just a reminder that in contentious areas, the talk page is usually preferable to continued bold edits, and that pointing out the committee's findings re: NPOV and science might be helpful. It's a logged warning, yes, but if you are just more careful with your edit summaries and talk more, and be a bit less bold, you shouldn't have any issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)- @TonyBallioni:Thanks for the advice, you are absolutely right about my intent, the "Good Idea" edit summary was intended as a response to a comment on the talk page but was confusing, "better wording" is an edit summary I often use when I am changing the wording but not the content, I didn't think this was confusing or deceptive but I will try to use more specific edit summaries in the future, but I am not sure what is misleading about "flows better".
- About the NVIC page, I thought WP:BRD was the standard, but now I will follow WP:ONUS, and on Sears I didn't realize it, but I just looked at the history and it looks like I may be at 6RR, so good catch! Tornado chaser (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Re: the edit summaries, if something has the potential to be contentious, just add more details. I want to get the idea behind what someone is doing so it is obvious when I see the diff. Some of those changes at first glance appear to change the meaning or remove content, which is why a bit more explanation could be helpful. Re: Sears, 3RR refers to a 24 hour period, but edit wars can take place over multiple days. 3RR is also a bright line and not a right, especially in contentious topic areas. At Sears, what I see is you making good faith reverts over similar or challenged content over a multi-day period without discussing that. It isn't a 3RR vio, but it is edit warring behavior, especially in a contentious topic area when no talk page has been used. Just keep in mind that in areas covered by discretionary sanctions, the talk page is always the best place to go rather than continuing to be bold. Like I said, you're clearly here to build the encyclopedia, just be more careful in this area . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thanks, last question, I get your concerns about edit warring and edit summaries, but you also mentioned WP:PSCI, where do you feel I have given too much legitimacy to pseudoscience? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to answer this without wading into the content dispute, as I've acted here in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and I don't want to influence the outcome of any potential talk discussion. Some of the concerns at Sears were over this edit. The scientific consensus (and sourcing), identify the views as dangerous, which is substantially different than not supported by scientific evidence. If the sourcing identifies something as dangerous, it is arguably giving undue weight to Sear's position not to classify it as such: even if you note that it isn't evidence based. This is of course, without suggesting an outcome any potential talk page conversation might have, but it is important to remember that NPOV does not always mean toned down language, sometimes it means calling a spade a spade, and this is especially true when science is involved. I hope that makes sense, and like I said, it is not meant to prejudice any potential change in wording based on talk page conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thanks, last question, I get your concerns about edit warring and edit summaries, but you also mentioned WP:PSCI, where do you feel I have given too much legitimacy to pseudoscience? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Re: the edit summaries, if something has the potential to be contentious, just add more details. I want to get the idea behind what someone is doing so it is obvious when I see the diff. Some of those changes at first glance appear to change the meaning or remove content, which is why a bit more explanation could be helpful. Re: Sears, 3RR refers to a 24 hour period, but edit wars can take place over multiple days. 3RR is also a bright line and not a right, especially in contentious topic areas. At Sears, what I see is you making good faith reverts over similar or challenged content over a multi-day period without discussing that. It isn't a 3RR vio, but it is edit warring behavior, especially in a contentious topic area when no talk page has been used. Just keep in mind that in areas covered by discretionary sanctions, the talk page is always the best place to go rather than continuing to be bold. Like I said, you're clearly here to build the encyclopedia, just be more careful in this area . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the Sears one you were engaged in reverts over a multi-day period to the point where in my opinion, you were part of a slow-burning edit war on the content. It is important to remember that On National Vaccine Information Center, you reintroduced challenged material: in contentious topic areas, it is always better to discuss before restoring content, and this has a policy basis at WP:ONUS. Also from looking at the edit history there and on other pages, you use confusing edit summaries which tell absolutely nothing about what you are doing to a third-party, and that can be about contentious material: [6], [7], [8], [9].Finally, on the NPOV point, I would like to emphasize the Committee's principle in the pseudoscience case in regards to NPOV and science:
Please comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Undoing edits
You undid an edit of mine without bothering to give a reason.[10] Have you read the manual of style? Have you read WP:REVEXP? If not, why not? If so, then presumably you are behaving disruptively just for fun here. 2.25.45.223 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Note
about this comment where you mentioned accusations of disruptive editing and suggestions that I be banned for a talk page discussion
. What I wrote was:
- diff
If there are not independent refs that say this, it is a very good sign that we should not be saying it, per WP:UNDUE. Continually trying to give UNDUE weight to FRINGE views is something that we TBAN people for, under the DS. You will do as you see fit going forward of course.
and
- this
In general, the community considers persistent advocacy for UNDUE content to be disruptive. This is actually the main kind of disruption that we get on pseudoscience topics - people who just will not relent doing things like citing primary sources to elevate some fringey perspective, even when everyone else is saying "umm no".
What I wrote was accurate.
I did not say that you are being disruptive and I did not say that you should be TBANed -- if I thought you were being disruptive already and should be TBANed already I would have actually filed at AE already.
I did make it clear that in my view you are heading in that direction. As I also said there, you will do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:I saw this as a passive-aggressive "you are being borderline disruptive and if you continue to disagree with me you may be banned" I am not shure how else to interpret this, adn was going to ask for clarification. I do know that good faith content disputes are not disruptive editing and therefore are not reasons for a ban, in my comment I was also referring to other editors who implied[11] that I am an antivaxxer. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Take it how you will. There was nothing passive or aggressive about what I wrote -- I was however being very clear - giving you a big "HEY MAN" that you were (are?) heading toward an AE enforcement action.
- If you do not understand that civil POV pushing a FRINGE view will indeed get someone topic banned, I suggest you spend some time reviewing AE filings. It will. My goal in saying it was to give you fair warning; my purpose in writing here was to clarify since you misundertood the warning. I have responded a last time here to further clarify. I will not reply further, since my goal was to give you a fair heads up, not to make drama. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I am not trying to create drama, but I am confused, I was given a warning to discuss changes to DS areas on the talk page, which I did, but was told this was "civil POV pushing" now if I edit warred or persistently argued against consensus, that would be disruptive, but I cannot be banned simply for being the party in a content dispute who did not get consensus, can I? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- It depends on how far you take it. I have no idea how far you will take it. Which is why it was a heads up and not an action in itself. I was "hey -- LOOK. There is the cliff edge which you are heading directly towards".
- There are DS on this topic for a reason- namely lots of people come and push and push and push and push, some in a civil way, some in a not so civil way. People come and they will not drop the stick, so we have DS to save everybody time and effort.
- I have seen many people be warned, blow the warnings off with labels like "passive aggressive", and keep right on, and go right over, and get indeffed or TBANed.
- Again, you will decide how far you will go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: So you mean so far my editing has been ok, but are warning me not to argue endlessly against consensus? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has been OKish but alarming to the extent that you have a string of people warning you, including the involved discussion with TonyBallioni just above. You have established your direction of travel toward the cliff edge on this topic. Your editing has been pretty decent elsewhere. This is why we have topic bans. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:Tony warned me to "use talk pages more", I did, and you dolt me I am on the way to a topic ban, this is why I am confused. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has been OKish but alarming to the extent that you have a string of people warning you, including the involved discussion with TonyBallioni just above. You have established your direction of travel toward the cliff edge on this topic. Your editing has been pretty decent elsewhere. This is why we have topic bans. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: So you mean so far my editing has been ok, but are warning me not to argue endlessly against consensus? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I am not trying to create drama, but I am confused, I was given a warning to discuss changes to DS areas on the talk page, which I did, but was told this was "civil POV pushing" now if I edit warred or persistently argued against consensus, that would be disruptive, but I cannot be banned simply for being the party in a content dispute who did not get consensus, can I? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)