| Revision as of 21:46, 27 February 2015 editTBSchemer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users665 edits →Personal Attacks at Democratic Party article and elsewhere: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 28 February 2015 edit undoDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 edits Reverted to revision 649050918 by DD2K (talk): Rv - laughable. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :: I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | :: I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yea, you were right that having the ref is better and no reason to remove it initially(by Hondo77). Unbuttered Parsnip must patrol some Ref-Error page that alerts editors of ref errors. Thanks! ] (]) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | :::Yea, you were right that having the ref is better and no reason to remove it initially(by Hondo77). Unbuttered Parsnip must patrol some Ref-Error page that alerts editors of ref errors. Thanks! ] (]) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Personal Attacks at Democratic Party article and elsewhere == | |||
| Your personal attacks have exhausted my patience, and I have reported you to the administrators. I think it would not be very difficult to come to an agreement in this dispute, but you've continued your long history of attacking people instead of discussing content. Since I have not been able to convince you to behave in a civil manner, I hope the administrators can do so. ] (]) 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:26, 28 February 2015
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Routine notification
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
2014 Isla Vista killings
DD2K, I haven't been working on this article much but the same editor insists on removing the LA Times reference that was revert, rereverted and rerereverted a few days ago. Could you take a look at this article? Thanks! Liz 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz: Yea it's stupid. The editor who makes the change(Hondo77) takes out a reference in that section that shouldn't be removed. Then as the reference isn't being used anymore, it leaves an error message on the page, so the editor Unbuttered Parsnip removes the reference entirely. But, as there is already an LA Times reference being used we should probably just leave it as it is now. Here are both references. 7 Dead in drive-by shooting and Isla Vista shooting suspect targeted sorority, neighbors, strangers. Both basically give the same information, if someone finds a need for the removed reference that the remaining references don't supply, I would add it back in. Otherwise, it's not worth the continuing circle of remove, remove, re-add. Thanks for the note and the watchful eye. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. Liz 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, you were right that having the ref is better and no reason to remove it initially(by Hondo77). Unbuttered Parsnip must patrol some Ref-Error page that alerts editors of ref errors. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. Liz 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)