| Revision as of 23:24, 9 December 2021 editPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Comments to Paul Siebert: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:25, 9 December 2021 edit undoPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 editsm →Comments to Paul SiebertTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ] (]) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC) | ] (]) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :TTAAC, please, be cautious with edit summaries. If I remember correctly, you had already been topic banned once for your edit summary. I recall, I tried to defend you, and I myself was sanctioned for that. This time, we may appear at the opposite sides of a barricade, an outcome that I |
:TTAAC, please, be cautious with edit summaries. If I remember correctly, you had already been topic banned once for your edit summary. I recall, I tried to defend you, and I myself was sanctioned for that. This time, we may appear at the opposite sides of a barricade, an outcome that I by no means want to achieve. | ||
| :I answered to your post at the talk page, and I explained why my interpretation was correct, and your interpretation was wrong. You didn't respond, which implied that you were satisfied with my answer. If you disagree, then you were expected to explain this disagreement. Instead, you just reverted me and supplemented it with an offencive edit summary. In that situation, it would be correct if you took some steps demonstrating your good faith. | :I answered to your post at the talk page, and I explained why my interpretation was correct, and your interpretation was wrong. You didn't respond, which implied that you were satisfied with my answer. If you disagree, then you were expected to explain this disagreement. Instead, you just reverted me and supplemented it with an offencive edit summary. In that situation, it would be correct if you took some steps demonstrating your good faith. | ||
| :Regards, ] (]) 23:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC) | :Regards, ] (]) 23:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:25, 9 December 2021
| Archives |
|
/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive 4/Archive 5/Archive 6/Archive 7/Archive 8/Archive 9 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Edit War
You give no reason for the edit except you disagree? What exactly do you disagree with? Dec212012 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- As I stated in my edit summary, your analysis of Dore's YouTube videos is non-notable original research. Two other users have now concurred with my analysis (, ). Perhaps you should brush up on the policy. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I added three sentences, one being a direct quote from the living person himself. I’m asking you again to please specify and explain your removing sourced material? The sources I used were The Boston Globe and the living person themselves own quote? I’ve ‘brushed up on’ original research and ask you again, what part of the two page article of original research you feel is not correct? As for your ‘two other users concurring, they used one word in their edit summary, SPIN. I ask you to stop this petty war. Giving a truthful quote, by a living person from a RS is not a reason for those three sentences to be removed. Dec212012 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your recent notice about edit warring. I am new to WP and still learning the ropes and was unaware of the rule. Editorial combat is the farthest from my mind. Looking forward to more amicable times. Thank you again. Moretonian (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
RfC on WSJ Talk Page
Sorry to bother, but I checked the archives for the previous RfC that you voted in, which ended up being archived without closing. Just wanted to let you know that a newer and more active discussion has arisen again, with new editors being involved. Bill Williams 01:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanking
I hope you don't mind my "thanking" your edits and comments. It usually means that I have examined the edit or read the comment and largely (or fully!!!) agree. If I really disagree, I'll leave a comment. I appreciate your attention to detail. This shit is pretty complicated at times. A "shotgun" approach doesn't work very well, and your "rifle" aim is pretty good. I can tell that you're not an extremist with their finger on the red button.
-- Valjean (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all, Valjean. It's always much better to login and see a blue "thanks" notification as opposed to a red notification indicating either a mention or, god forbid, a revert!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments to Paul Siebert
You are the only one misrepresenting the source, as already explained. Please come up with a credible rationale before removing again
This is appalling language to use in a revert, particularly to a respected and meticulous editor. It is not for you to say who is misrepresenting what, and it is not for you to assert what is and is not a "credible rationale". I know you feel strongly about one side of this argument, but you need to cool your jets here. In the interests of good faith, I expect that revert to be reverted when I come back to the page tomorrow.
DublinDilettante (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- TTAAC, please, be cautious with edit summaries. If I remember correctly, you had already been topic banned once for your edit summary. I recall, I tried to defend you, and I myself was sanctioned for that. This time, we may appear at the opposite sides of a barricade, an outcome that I by no means want to achieve.
- I answered to your post at the talk page, and I explained why my interpretation was correct, and your interpretation was wrong. You didn't respond, which implied that you were satisfied with my answer. If you disagree, then you were expected to explain this disagreement. Instead, you just reverted me and supplemented it with an offencive edit summary. In that situation, it would be correct if you took some steps demonstrating your good faith.
- Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)