| Revision as of 20:18, 17 October 2015 editDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →October 2015← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:00, 5 November 2015 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,132 edits →The talk page comment I mentioned: r | ||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == The talk page comment I mentioned == | |||
| == October 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a ]. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npov1 --> ] (]) 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It's in your contributions -- see " 21:21, 17 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+81) . . User talk:Dbrodbeck (Undid revision 685445541 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Trolling and pushing biased wording.)". | |||
| ==Discovery Institute== | |||
| It is possible to view the IP addresses of accounts. People who can do this are trusted members of the community called ]s and can only do this in a narrowly limited set of circumstances, mainly to identify if a user is using more than one account. As a member of the Arbitration Committee I technically can do this but it would not be a legitimate use of the checkuser tool. In any case you should now be able to see the link. ] (]) 17:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Your edit has been reverted by another editor. Your statement that it has been discussed on the talk page may be true but the consensus is to support the sources which follow the current scientific consensus. Any future similar edits you make will similarly be reverted to represent NPOV properly cited information ] (]) 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :We call this page your talk page, and it is used for a variety of purposes, warnings included. These are warnings, not threats. They are basically statements that if you continue to do x then y is likely to follow. Dbrodbeck isn't an Administrator so couldn't block you but could report you. I could block you if, for instance, you continued to edit war (hopefully that won't happen), but I wouldn't because we are involved in a content discussion so it would be inappropriate for me to take action. ] (]) 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2015 == | |||
| ] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being ]. ''Stop edit warring NOW.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| Ah, I couldn't find it because I was looking for 21:21 not 20:21 - must be because of timezone differences. In any case, thank you for removing the comment. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I did see that someone had written the following on his talk page: ] Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to ] has been ] or removed because it was a misuse of a ]. Please use the ] for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our ] to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tempabuse1 --> ] (]) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It seems as if this wasn't the first time that he had overused these templates to bully another user out of making contributions.] (]) 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spoke too soon. 3 reverts isn't an entitlement and you are edit warring again. You don't have ] and are likely to be reported for editwarring, perhaps by me, if you continue. ] (]) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Doesn't the person submitting the change need the consensus? I'm reverting to the original version and he is making the change to the page without consensus.] (]) 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Short answer is that several editors reverted you. When that happens it's a sign that you need to stop and discuss on the talk page. Whether you need consensus to change depends - sometimes if you are going to make a major change you need to look at the talk page. In this case I think people simply hadn't noticed or realised the implications of the wording. ] (]) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:00, 5 November 2015
The talk page comment I mentioned
It's in your contributions -- see " 21:21, 17 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+81) . . User talk:Dbrodbeck (Undid revision 685445541 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Trolling and pushing biased wording.)". It is possible to view the IP addresses of accounts. People who can do this are trusted members of the community called WP:Check users and can only do this in a narrowly limited set of circumstances, mainly to identify if a user is using more than one account. As a member of the Arbitration Committee I technically can do this but it would not be a legitimate use of the checkuser tool. In any case you should now be able to see the link. Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- We call this page your talk page, and it is used for a variety of purposes, warnings included. These are warnings, not threats. They are basically statements that if you continue to do x then y is likely to follow. Dbrodbeck isn't an Administrator so couldn't block you but could report you. I could block you if, for instance, you continued to edit war (hopefully that won't happen), but I wouldn't because we are involved in a content discussion so it would be inappropriate for me to take action. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I couldn't find it because I was looking for 21:21 not 20:21 - must be because of timezone differences. In any case, thank you for removing the comment.
I did see that someone had written the following on his talk page: 
Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Logos has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. Logos (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems as if this wasn't the first time that he had overused these templates to bully another user out of making contributions.Zacksfenton (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Spoke too soon. 3 reverts isn't an entitlement and you are edit warring again. You don't have WP:CONSENSUS and are likely to be reported for editwarring, perhaps by me, if you continue. Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the person submitting the change need the consensus? I'm reverting to the original version and he is making the change to the page without consensus.Zacksfenton (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Short answer is that several editors reverted you. When that happens it's a sign that you need to stop and discuss on the talk page. Whether you need consensus to change depends - sometimes if you are going to make a major change you need to look at the talk page. In this case I think people simply hadn't noticed or realised the implications of the wording. Doug Weller (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)