| Revision as of 15:15, 25 October 2012 editFestermunk (talk | contribs)830 edits →Continued edit warring RT (TV network)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:20, 25 October 2012 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Request for Arbitration: WP:DRNNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| ==Request for Arbitration== | ==Request for Arbitration== | ||
| Since you are so adamant about this disruptive editing charge, can you request an arbitration regarding this issue?] (]) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | Since you are so adamant about this disruptive editing charge, can you request an arbitration regarding this issue?] (]) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| : this is usually the first recourse, per the title of the RT talk page thread. I have started a thread. ] '']'' 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:20, 25 October 2012
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
 Green Line for Barnstars and Other Stuff
|
|---|
| Link to Newsletters I Need to Read
|
|---|
Long-due Barnstar for RT edits
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| for extraordinary effort in bringing page RT (TV network) to reasonably NPOV. Ipsign (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks. Hope you'll still agree when put up my list of notable guests tomorrow. (After format to make refs as non obstrusive as possible.) CarolMooreDC 07:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You
|
Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Smithsonian 2012 Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your participation in Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries 2012! It was a great day, thanks to enthusiastic participants like you. Hope to see you again at future meetups! And thank you for the Graphic Design barnstar! -Sarasays (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. I did get some good tips there on research on a science related bio I've been meaning to work on some more. Plus going to work a bit more on Global Volcanism Program. CarolMooreDC 16:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk Page Edit
, can you find the specific clause in Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Reply at Festermunk talk. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- As per your quote here," I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. " I should point out that many people do do that. Also, I'd like an answer to my question please, can you find the specific clause in Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- As put on your talk page:
- Per the link I provided you above : Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. However, this assumes a really long thread and the editor doesn't object, which most do and I do. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- " You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments.", If you read the interruption's section, you'll find that it disproves your claim completely.
- Per the link I provided you above : Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. However, this assumes a really long thread and the editor doesn't object, which most do and I do. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- As put on your talk page:
- As per your quote here," I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. " I should point out that many people do do that. Also, I'd like an answer to my question please, can you find the specific clause in Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Continued edit warring RT (TV network)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Comment: As the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like when your initial revert was reverted (and by someone else, not me) and doing so under the pretext they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they object and hassle them about it is also disruptive edit warring behavior. I just want you to be aware of what I perceive your behavior as being and as admins might also perceive it as being, should it continue in this pattern. Festermunk (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Copying my edit warring notice to you onto my page is just harassment at this point. CarolMooreDC 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- You must've forgotten the part where you put the edit warring notice on my page first. Festermunk (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
Since you are so adamant about this disruptive editing charge, can you request an arbitration regarding this issue?Festermunk (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- this is usually the first recourse, per the title of the RT talk page thread. I have started a thread. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 CarolMooreDC 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)