| Revision as of 22:31, 22 June 2015 editGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,866 edits →Inappropriate warning: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 11 December 2024 edit undoFreestyler Scientist (talk | contribs)40 edits →Revert by mistake: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit. | ||
| ⚫ | {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age= 30 |collapsible=yes}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = User talk: |
|archive = User talk:KoA/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age= 30 |collapsible=yes}} | ||
| ⚫ | I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit. | ||
| {{Ds/aware|gmo|ps}} | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ==A barnstar for you!== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For being almost infinitely patient with a user, despite numerous provocations and opportunities to not be, I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! We need more people like you :) ] (]) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Your revert of ''Bayer'' == | |||
| Your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bayer&oldid=655974454 | |||
| Your comment: "Nor really relevant here, but moreso over at Neonicotinoid." | |||
| If the findings of a new meta study implicate Bayer's Neonicotinoids, and there is a section called Neonicotinoid pesticides in that article with several paragraphs that tend to exonerate Bayer, how is my edit not relevant? If it wasn't you would need to delete the entire section. | |||
| Together with your of Syngenta in the respective article that makes you look like a shill for big agro-chemical corporations. | |||
| I will undo your revert. If you want you can discuss this on the Bayer talk page. Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| {{ping|Chic happens}} Assuming from your edit summary that the unsigned comment above was yours, this was pretty ugly behavior. If you have an argument for retaining the material based what is already present there, that's great. But the "shill for big Agro" comment was completely uncalled for and does not contribute in any way to collaborative editing. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :], as mentioned above, those remarks are highly inappropriate. You appear to be a fairly new editor, so please remember to read the ], especially that we ] and focus on content, not contributor. Referring to someone as a shill is never appropriate here. That all being said, conversations on content should be on the article talk page rather than user talk pages so others who watch the page can see. ] (]) 01:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your kindness, and extraordinary patience, especially when dealing with contentious editors. ] (]) 05:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == GM Food RfC == | |||
| Note about ] where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. ] (]) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 27485 --> ] (]) 00:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 --> | |||
| ==Tuhin Sinha== | |||
| I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Misplaced Pages policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - ] (]) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 27936 --> ] (]) 00:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. ] (]) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| == Revert by mistake == | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 28332 --> ] (]) 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: ] ''violation,'' while it was my first revert at all. ] (]) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Inappropriate warning == | |||
| :You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to ] as Bon Courage mentioned or ] the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. ] (]) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please strike the inappropriate warning that you placed on my talkpage. You claimed that there were four reverts in a 24-hour period at ], which is not correct. I would suggest that you examine the edits more closely, because there were only two reverts, both of material that was not supported by the reference. My other edits were clearly not reversions, but mere editing, leaving the information in the article while removing a duplicate wikilink (but leaving the information in the article), etc. I would also suggest that if you claim to put the warnings up at three reverts, you explain why you have not warned Jytdog, who did in fact have three reverts and was editing against consensus. If you choose not to do so, I have no problem bringing this up at AN/I. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not understand what you call 'revert'. | |||
| ::I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added '''without all parts mentioned as problematic.''' Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs | |||
| ::The second edit was reverted without reason, so I ]. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: ] ] (]) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. ] (]) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). ] (]) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. ] (]) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. ] (]) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:21, 11 December 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Tuhin Sinha
I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Misplaced Pages policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. KoA (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Revert by mistake
You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: WP:1RR violation, while it was my first revert at all.Mentioned reversion Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to WP:LEADBOMB as Bon Courage mentioned or WP:BLUDGEON the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. KoA (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you call 'revert'.
- I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added without all parts mentioned as problematic. Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs
- The second edit was reverted without reason, so I WP:Obvert. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)