| Revision as of 10:39, 15 November 2017 editGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:57, 15 November 2017 edit undoGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,237 editsm Reverted edits by GoldenRing (talk) to last version by BowlAndSpoonNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| I’d like you to stop with your ], like on . I don’t know what your insinuation: " continued blanking of well-sourced content" is referring to, but surely, the accusation being totally vague and coming out of the blue, it's out of line there and a ]. We just try to improve our encyclopedia. I always (try to) motivate my edits. If you disagree with an edit or with its given motivation, or find that motivation too vague or incomprehensible or absent, you can always revert it (ofcourse also with a clear motivation). --] (]) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) | I’d like you to stop with your ], like on . I don’t know what your insinuation: " continued blanking of well-sourced content" is referring to, but surely, the accusation being totally vague and coming out of the blue, it's out of line there and a ]. We just try to improve our encyclopedia. I always (try to) motivate my edits. If you disagree with an edit or with its given motivation, or find that motivation too vague or incomprehensible or absent, you can always revert it (ofcourse also with a clear motivation). --] (]) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :You cannot be serious. If "continued blanking of well-sourced content" counts as a personal attack, even the simplest disagreements between editors will be personal attacks. That is a straightforward explanation of why your edit was reverted. My opinion is that you need to grow a thicker skin. --] (]) 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC) | :You cannot be serious. If "continued blanking of well-sourced content" counts as a personal attack, even the simplest disagreements between editors will be personal attacks. That is a straightforward explanation of why your edit was reverted. My opinion is that you need to grow a thicker skin. --] (]) 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction == | |||
| Per ] at the ], you are now subject to the following restrictions: | |||
| * You are banned from interacting with {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} for three months. This is subject to the ] plus you may report violations of this IBAN to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You are counselled to not use the exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations except in the most obvious of obvious cases. | |||
| * You are warned to edit collegially. | |||
| ] (]) 10:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:57, 15 November 2017
Template:Archive box collapsible
Ummm...
Donald Trump on social media. You do know that article is under 1RR, right? Volunteer Marek 17:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't. If I don't see the notice at the top while editing, I usually just assume the standard 3RR is in force. For what it's worth, I don't think that Blythwood was aware that the article is under 1RR, either. In any case, all of my reverts have already been reverted, so there's nothing left to self-revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I didn't know this either. There's no message in the edit window and no comment on the top of the page pointing it out. I've added one.
Regarding the "modern day presidential" quote, I do support having it because I think it sums up Trump's attitude to social media: that it allows him to bypass the media and get attention as part of being "modern day presidential". So I'm not saying it's representative of his Twitter posts (what is?) but I think it's a reasonable way of kicking off the article. Still, I don't disagree that having it above the infobox is ugly. How about putting it in the Background section ranged left? Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)- Yeah I figured this was in good faith (for both of you) which is why I've pointed it out here. Volunteer Marek 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I didn't know this either. There's no message in the edit window and no comment on the top of the page pointing it out. I've added one.
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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: casualties
Times, I respect that you will actually have a civil discussion on this or other issues. If you'd accept some kind of dispute resolution, I'd appreciate that. I'm not 100% convinced of what should be in this article, but from a purely methodological perspective, refugees really do play a major role in the determination of casualties, and this is known among epidemiologists. I think it's also clear that the creation of refugees and orphans is directly related to casualties in a conflict. -Darouet (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Our old friend
Could it be him ?--Shrike (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- It seems very likely to me, for many reasons. BowlAndSpoon (formerly known as Iloveandrea), any words in your defense?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Does BAS got a standard offer?--Shrike (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, that is what he told me. That said, it must have happened after the BowlAndSpoon account was created on November 22, 2015; YeOldeGentleman was indeffed just three days earlier. For what it's worth, I have not seen any problematic editing from the BowlAndSpoon account.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Does BAS got a standard offer?--Shrike (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Not guilty on this one! You can IP me and whatever. I'm not up to much on Misplaced Pages at the moment. And thank you to TTAAC for his evenhanded comments about me here. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Also – just to make some sort of token effort to save the AusLondoner person some possible grief – if you look at my history of bannage, I have never used two accounts concurrently. I have been banned, then set up a new one to carry on where I left off, but I've never used two accounts at once.
YeOldeGentleman was me. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Standard offer, I've never received. No, actually I got one for another account, which I don't recall... but TTAAC secured that account's ban shortly afterwards! This is some time ago now, so recollection might be off. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oops! I just thought of one more thing! Shrike, you'll see I've stayed off Israel–Palestine. My recollection is I got a TBAN for it at some point, but it always got me into trouble, so I've stayed from it anyway. Similarly to most articles on US foreign relations, unless my own shitty country is involved e.g. Yemen.
Here are some pretty Polki for you, Shrike:
Don't you like Polki? 😍😍😍 --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
AN notice
This is to let you know that I have filed a complaint about you at AN. The specific link is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#TheTimesAreAChanging is still harassing SPECIFICO. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Your personal attack
I’d like you to stop with your personal attacks, like on page Taliban on 15Oct2017,07:03. I don’t know what your insinuation: " continued blanking of well-sourced content" is referring to, but surely, the accusation being totally vague and coming out of the blue, it's out of line there and a personal attack. We just try to improve our encyclopedia. I always (try to) motivate my edits. If you disagree with an edit or with its given motivation, or find that motivation too vague or incomprehensible or absent, you can always revert it (ofcourse also with a clear motivation). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- You cannot be serious. If "continued blanking of well-sourced content" counts as a personal attack, even the simplest disagreements between editors will be personal attacks. That is a straightforward explanation of why your edit was reverted. My opinion is that you need to grow a thicker skin. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)