| Revision as of 19:02, 29 May 2018 edit74.195.159.155 (talk) →May 2018← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:26, 7 June 2018 edit undoDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →June 2018: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| * I understand you had good-faith ] concerns, but you still should have discussed the matter at ]. Edit summaries are not the place to engage in extended arguments. --] (]) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) | * I understand you had good-faith ] concerns, but you still should have discussed the matter at ]. Edit summaries are not the place to engage in extended arguments. --] (]) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm not sure what edits warrant discussion in Talk and which ones don't, but WP policy says explicitly to not bother with the Talk with contentious information that's not sourced sufficiently. I'm almost certain that if I went the discussion route then the misinformation would still be in the article. I took some concerns to the notice board and got no results or any discussion that took the concerns seriously. | :I'm not sure what edits warrant discussion in Talk and which ones don't, but WP policy says explicitly to not bother with the Talk with contentious information that's not sourced sufficiently. I'm almost certain that if I went the discussion route then the misinformation would still be in the article. I took some concerns to the notice board and got no results or any discussion that took the concerns seriously. | ||
| == June 2018 == | |||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> --] (]) 16:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:26, 7 June 2018
May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Swann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you had good-faith WP:BLP concerns, but you still should have discussed the matter at Talk:Ben Swann. Edit summaries are not the place to engage in extended arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what edits warrant discussion in Talk and which ones don't, but WP policy says explicitly to not bother with the Talk with contentious information that's not sourced sufficiently. I'm almost certain that if I went the discussion route then the misinformation would still be in the article. I took some concerns to the notice board and got no results or any discussion that took the concerns seriously.
June 2018
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)