| Revision as of 12:40, 4 August 2009 editNarson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,299 edits →August 2009: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:40, 4 August 2009 edit undoWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits →August 2009: comment on verifiability and RS and a polite request to stop using my talk page as a personal soap boxNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Gibraltar|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> It is worth noting you have been warned about this behaviour previously. I would not be surprised if you were reported still. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Gibraltar|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> It is worth noting you have been warned about this behaviour previously. I would not be surprised if you were reported still. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Verifiability == | |||
| The relevant standard for a citation is verifiability, see ], provided it is a reliable source ], then it is perfectly acceptable. You cannot reject a citation simply because you don't like it. And I see we've been edit warring again. | |||
| Also please stop using my talk page as your soap box. Thank you. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:40, 4 August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Justin talk 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
For information, the countries listed on the UN list of dependent territories was originally compiled based upon nominations by nation states. Gibraltar and other territories are listed because the UK listed them, not because the UN compiled a list as you assert. This means for example that territories such as Tibet, are not listed. It is also a fact that the territory of Gibraltar is self-governing, that the Spanish Government disputes this is immaterial. Justin talk 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
CANVAS
See WP:CANVAS soliciting other editors to campaign in support of your proposals is disruptive. Please stop. Justin talk 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please believe me: I do not even know what canvassing means. I didn't know that a newcomer could not ask for advice from more experienced editors with some interest in the article he/she is trying to edit. Then, how am I supposed to learn? Did you learn everything about WP by yourself (because asking for advice would have been disruptive)? What do you recommend then? I know what I'll do: ask you for advice. That way you will not get suspicious and will be able to prove that you are able to help a newcomer in spite of him contradicting your view (for the sake of WP itself). What would you do in my place? If someone recently inserted a very significant (unreferenced) statement in the introduction of an important article, and you thought that it was biased, and that it should be undone until a new consensus was reached? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't believe your protestations of innocence. You were not asking for advice, you were trying to recruit someone you thought might be sympathetic to your position. The statement is not unreferenced, it isn't biased but what what you're trying to impose is. Justin talk 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where is the statement referenced? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't believe your protestations of innocence. You were not asking for advice, you were trying to recruit someone you thought might be sympathetic to your position. The statement is not unreferenced, it isn't biased but what what you're trying to impose is. Justin talk 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, now that I have read about canvassing, I see that there is a difference between appropriate "friendly notice" and "inappropriatte canvassing". I would not say that just one post explicitly stating my position and asking for advice was "canvassing"... I insist, please, assume my good faith... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And btw claiming to be a newcomer, when you have already demonstrated in-depth knowledge of wiki processes, is frankly stretching credibility. Justin talk 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha! Thank you very much! I don't deserve this! ;) I have only spent about 4 hours editing WP (really, I haven't had that much time during the last few years...). I hope that taking a look at my activity will bring you out of your (otherwise complimentary) mistake. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is worth noting you have been warned about this behaviour previously. I would not be surprised if you were reported still. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability
The relevant standard for a citation is verifiability, see WP:V, provided it is a reliable source WP:RS, then it is perfectly acceptable. You cannot reject a citation simply because you don't like it. And I see we've been edit warring again.
Also please stop using my talk page as your soap box. Thank you. Justin talk 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)