Revision as of 00:00, 14 February 2022 editIxtal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,219 edits →Misuse of article talk pages: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:02, 14 February 2022 edit undoTomwsulcer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,248 edits refresh pageNext edit → |
Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for comment at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, ], I've noticed that you've taken a bit of interest in the edits to delete a "see also" section link to the ] from the article on ]. Would you care to also weigh in on this issue over at.... ] ? Thank you for your consideration, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misuse of article talk pages == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi! I've recently been alerted to a section you created in ] titled ], where you discussed another article and edits you wish to make to that other article. Next time I recommend you discuss these issues in a relevant WikiProject (such as ] or ]) or through RfCs in the relevant article talk page, as well as write notices of ongoing disputes in a neutral manner (see ]). Responding to a revert by undoing the revert instead of discussing the issue in the talk page may be considered ]. I understand you and the other editor involved in the article have been engaged in a discussion at ]. However, this is no excuse and you are still expected to follow the procedures and recommendations of guidelines and policies such as ] and ]. ] ⁂ ] 23:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Additionally, as someone with as much experience as you have there is the expectation of ]. I know wiki editing can be immensely stressful and infuriating at times, but if you find yourself impatient or feeling impotent at what a new editor is doing, it is best to engage in ] and seek help from other experienced editors in a neutral manner (in the ways I've discussed above) rather than ] (I myself have needed and benefited from this advice before). ] ⁂ ] 00:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|