| Revision as of 20:04, 15 May 2014 editRichard Keatinge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,943 edits removed comment to more appropriate Talk:Traditional Chinese Medicine← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 15 May 2014 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Misleading and out of context: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.}} ] (]) 13:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.}} ] (]) 13:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Misleading and out of context == | |||
| did not respond to my comment. You misplaced my comment. ] (]) 20:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:34, 15 May 2014
Article Revision
Regarding your revision to the article on the Highland Clearances: I would appreciate it if you negate what I said with a source. I can understand it is a delicate issue for some people, yet it remains in the written record and I was as fair about this in my wording as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Highland Clearances". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
OHP article issue
For your information . Psyc12 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I shall keep an eye on it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest that you personally RK, start making those substantial changes you believe, are required. But you do need to make a start, as talking about an 'overhaul' has proven futile and has been ignored by other editors. As I say, you will quickly see what opposition you get from these other editors once you actually start. So, I encourage you to just do it!Mrm7171 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
New development.Psyc12 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
POV-Warrior
Hi. It's better to report this user to admins. I've reviewed his edits. His blanking and unsourced edits (sometimes he did falsification) show that he is not here to improve the articles. I think other editors reverted almost all of his edits. --Zyma (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see he's been blocked now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.QuackGuru (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Misleading and out of context
Jayaguru-Shishya did not respond to my comment. You misplaced my comment. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)