| Revision as of 05:41, 29 July 2016 editJim1138 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,704 editsm Reverted edits by 76.123.200.158 (talk): Personal attack or uncivil behavior toward another user (HG) (3.1.21)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:04, 8 August 2016 edit undoRotary Engine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers11,478 edits →Proposed lead section: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ==AE request closed== | ==AE request closed== | ||
| I have closed an ] request that you filed regarding {{u|Ranze}}. The result is that no action was taken since the topic ban had expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, you're not at fault for mistakenly believing that the ban was still in force. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) | I have closed an ] request that you filed regarding {{u|Ranze}}. The result is that no action was taken since the topic ban had expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, you're not at fault for mistakenly believing that the ban was still in force. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Proposed lead section == | |||
| It might be worthwhile self-reverting the Proposal #3 from the Gamergate article. It's clearly over the top and misaligned with previous statements on the matter that it's likely to be seen as disruptive. Your mileage may, however, vary. - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:04, 8 August 2016
Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
June 2016
Hi Peter. You appear to have broken the 1RR restriction on Gamergate with these two reverts within 24 hours: . I'm sure it was unintentional. A self-revert would be the easiest way to settle it. Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @James J. Lambden: Per WP:EW- "
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
". I don't believe the first diff you linked is a revert- it's a change to wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)- Both edits removed the following text:
- "...began principally in the area of video game journalism"
- Neither replaced it in substance.
- You're welcome to consult more senior editors but the case is straightforward. If necessary I'll link AE requests you filed and/or participated in concerning similar reverts, showing your understanding these edits fall within the definition of "revert" and the scope of the restriction, but they'll come in an enforcement request and I'd prefer to keep this collegial. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll phone a friend- The Wordsmith, do you believe the first diff linked by James J. Lambden is a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- They both remove some of the same phrasing. While some of the content is different, they both are substantially a revert by the standards used here, and Arbcom Findings of Fact, AE and AN3 have sanctioned for similar edits. I do believe that it was an accident, and not in bad faith. To avoid giving anyone ammunition to cause drama, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert as a gesture of good faith. The Wordsmith 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for being reasonable. It is rare in this topic area, as I'm sure you're aware. The Wordsmith 14:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- They both remove some of the same phrasing. While some of the content is different, they both are substantially a revert by the standards used here, and Arbcom Findings of Fact, AE and AN3 have sanctioned for similar edits. I do believe that it was an accident, and not in bad faith. To avoid giving anyone ammunition to cause drama, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert as a gesture of good faith. The Wordsmith 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll phone a friend- The Wordsmith, do you believe the first diff linked by James J. Lambden is a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia
Thanks for your edits to List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia. If you follow the edit history you'll see I have been trying to weed out non-reliable accounts and uncritical acceptance of the fringe view that real ghosts exist in all of these places, but another editor has been blind reverting me. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ghostbusters
Not sure how to create a new section for Ghostbusters/July 2016, so I'll just use this one. The two sources given basically say "Critics give lots of legitimate reasons why they don't like the idea of the new Ghostbusters and think that it will suck, but we're pretty sure it's just because they hate women." I just wanted to discuss this with you before the GB article gets even more messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs)
- @MegaSolipsist: To create a new section, either click the 'new section' button next to the 'edit' button, or tag it as such- == Section name ==. I think the best place to discuss your problem with the sources used for the statement (and your preferred alternative) is the talk page for the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
AE request closed
I have closed an arbitration enforcement request that you filed regarding Ranze. The result is that no action was taken since the topic ban had expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, you're not at fault for mistakenly believing that the ban was still in force. Seraphimblade 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed lead section
It might be worthwhile self-reverting the Proposal #3 from the Gamergate article. It's clearly over the top and misaligned with previous statements on the matter that it's likely to be seen as disruptive. Your mileage may, however, vary. - Ryk72 22:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)