| Revision as of 23:54, 10 January 2014 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers299,612 edits →Please use WP:BRD: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:52, 11 January 2014 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Please use WP:BRD: if you add new refs that are a good faith attempt to deal with issues, it's perfectly fine; more SPECIFICO harassmentNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| ::Please move your (erroneous) statements to the article talk page where the content and source should be discussed. ]] 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | ::Please move your (erroneous) statements to the article talk page where the content and source should be discussed. ]] 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::No. Not until you remove your warning. (You can remove the entire section, including my comments.) Take a look – you are addressing RS questions here, and my addition relates directly to these comments. – ] (]) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | :::No. Not until you remove your warning. (You can remove the entire section, including my comments.) Take a look – you are addressing RS questions here, and my addition relates directly to these comments. – ] (]) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thanks, SRich, for pointing out that if you add new refs that are a good faith attempt to deal with issues, it's perfectly fine. If SPECIFICO really wanted to improve the article he'd suggest how to properly ref it, instead of looking for excuses to remove evidence of notability. Just more SPECIFICO harassment under false pretenses. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 02:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:52, 11 January 2014
   I'm busy in the real world and don't get notifications so it may take a few days to get back if you want to contact me about the few abstruse articles I'm watching or may contribute to. Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
|
|---|
 |
 | This user wants to see everything in its place. |
You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon
| Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited! | |
|---|---|
| File:Csaky madonna.jpg | Hi Carolmooredc! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Washington, D.C.! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join! Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. |
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please use WP:BRD
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jesus Huerta de Soto. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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 controversial 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. Please read the BRD essay and observe its protocols. The source you've added is a primary source which does not support your two-time insertion of article text. Your edit is your WP:OR interpretation and WP:SYNTH inference from a primary source. It's particularly inadvisable to open a talk thread and then to precipitously undo a colleague's revert before engaging in discussion or responding to the reverting editor's edit summary on talk. Please undo your most recent edit and use talk to explain your views. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I note that an article talk page section was opened by Carolmooredc 30 minutes before this notice was posted. Posting on that thread, rather than a 3RR warning here, would encourage collaboration. The second edit actually added another source. Also, a review of the edits indicates the material is RS. The fact that HdS is the Spanish version editor is not a bit of information that needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a simple fact, and no SYNTH is involved. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and this guideline allows for primary source material. If there is contradiction, the particulars should be pointed out on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please move your (erroneous) statements to the article talk page where the content and source should be discussed. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. Not until you remove your warning. (You can remove the entire section, including my comments.) Take a look – you are addressing RS questions here, and my addition relates directly to these comments. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, SRich, for pointing out that if you add new refs that are a good faith attempt to deal with issues, it's perfectly fine. If SPECIFICO really wanted to improve the article he'd suggest how to properly ref it, instead of looking for excuses to remove evidence of notability. Just more SPECIFICO harassment under false pretenses. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. Not until you remove your warning. (You can remove the entire section, including my comments.) Take a look – you are addressing RS questions here, and my addition relates directly to these comments. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please move your (erroneous) statements to the article talk page where the content and source should be discussed. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)