| Revision as of 01:26, 8 November 2013 editCFredkin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,176 edits →Newsmax: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:25, 12 November 2013 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,799 edits Warning: Edit warring on Joss Whedon. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at . Thank you.] (]) 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at . Thank you.] (]) 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == November 2013 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:25, 12 November 2013
Boo.
|
Trial and Tribulation |
| Enjoy your ANI.
Trick or Treat. SPECIFICO talk 04:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
Many thanks
Many tanks for the heads up. I'll respond appropriately. X4n6 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban.
I expect that you are watching the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, but if you are not, the consensus of the community is that you are banned from engaging in any edits or interactions with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute. I wish you the best of editing in other areas of the encyclopedia. Please remember that you can't go wrong if you stick to clearly reliable sources. bd2412 T 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Does this topic ban have an expiration or a period after which I'm expected to request its conclusion? MilesMoney (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since I'm just a closing administrator (and not ArbCom), you are free to request removal of the topic ban at any time at ANI; however, you will need to obtain a consensus in favor of such a removal. In practice, this is unlikely to occur absent a period of conduct on your part which creates a substantial impression that you will not revisit the practices that led to the topic ban in the first place. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Proud of you, young man
You comported yourself very well during your "trial", young man. Ironing your suits and tying your ties for you always made me gleam (it was mature of you to ditch the bow-tie to avoid the impression that you were making a statement against Murray). I know that Ms. User:SPECIFICO was happy to give you daily rides to court. We both thought you were particularly poised when that tough guy military prosecutor got in your face (I had to hid my eyes at that point, and luckily, Ms. SPECIFICO was up to the task. ;) ) And all things considered, the verdict -- no sanctions on 99.9% of libertarian WP pages -- ain't too bad. Steeletrap (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Some of the details still make no sense to me, such as the absence of a BLP violation, but any trial you can walk away from is a good one, I suppose. It's not the hanging that some would have paid to see, nor was it the exoneration that I deserved. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Leave aside the absence of a BLP violation. None of your diffs of your alleged "misconduct" that the community based its decision on (with the possible exception of the closing admin) had anything to do with your edits to BLPs! Steeletrap (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The more you explain it, the less sense it makes. MilesMoney (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Leave aside the absence of a BLP violation. None of your diffs of your alleged "misconduct" that the community based its decision on (with the possible exception of the closing admin) had anything to do with your edits to BLPs! Steeletrap (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Newsmax
Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at . Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joss Whedon. 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, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)