| Revision as of 21:48, 7 January 2025 editPoliticalPoint (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users714 edits →January 2025← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:59, 7 January 2025 edit undoFMSky (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers223,301 edits →January 2025Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :::The problems with unencyclopedic writing that were the original reason for the revert are still clearly there and haven't been adressed at all ("touted working for", "a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports") --] (]) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | :::The problems with unencyclopedic writing that were the original reason for the revert are still clearly there and haven't been adressed at all ("touted working for", "a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports") --] (]) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{Reply|FMSky}} You are now blatantly lying. Two ] were cited in support of the exact same wording that you objected to before and here object to again: and . Will you now apologize for your false allegations in bad faith and your blatantly ]? --] (]) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ::::{{Reply|FMSky}} You are now blatantly lying. Two ] were cited in support of the exact same wording that you objected to before and here object to again: and . Will you now apologize for your false allegations in bad faith and your blatantly ]? --] (]) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::::How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And the statements weren't even attributed to someone --] (]) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:59, 7 January 2025
 Archives | |
|
|
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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PoliticalPoint&oldid=1251419801 Here you said "No more reverts on any articles that implicate biographies of living persons, except in obvious cases of vandalism.", yet you're still doing it 1, 2, 3 --FMSky (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- pinging originally involved admin @ToBeFree: ---FMSky (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FMSky: That was an edit, not a revert. You did the revert, again, without any meaningful explanation whatsoever, despite your concern having been addressed with a reliable source in support of the wording that you objected to and not one but two message left on your user talk page regarding that matter that you pointedly refused to respond to on both occasions. You are clearly engaging in disruptive editing and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problems with unencyclopedic writing that were the original reason for the revert are still clearly there and haven't been adressed at all ("touted working for", "a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports") --FMSky (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FMSky: You are now blatantly lying. Two reliable sources were cited in support of the exact same wording that you objected to before and here object to again: and . Will you now apologize for your false allegations in bad faith and your blatantly disruptive editing? --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And the statements weren't even attributed to someone --FMSky (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FMSky: You are now blatantly lying. Two reliable sources were cited in support of the exact same wording that you objected to before and here object to again: and . Will you now apologize for your false allegations in bad faith and your blatantly disruptive editing? --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problems with unencyclopedic writing that were the original reason for the revert are still clearly there and haven't been adressed at all ("touted working for", "a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports") --FMSky (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FMSky: That was an edit, not a revert. You did the revert, again, without any meaningful explanation whatsoever, despite your concern having been addressed with a reliable source in support of the wording that you objected to and not one but two message left on your user talk page regarding that matter that you pointedly refused to respond to on both occasions. You are clearly engaging in disruptive editing and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)