| Revision as of 04:02, 27 June 2013 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,573,849 editsm Substing templates: {{uw-ew}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 27 June 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Skousen: second false charge of edit warring; learn more about edit warringNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| 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 --> | 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 --> | ||
| Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. ]] 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. ]] 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Again, you make a false accusation. This is part of the whole ongoing discussion of WP:OR which two editors have objected to. In the past I corrected the Skousen quote which was totally inaccurate per the source. ] ] and tagged it. | |||
| :However, I reverted it for the first time . ''If you and LawrenceKhoo really believed you were in the right'' you would have defended your position at WP:BLPN and WP:ORN. But he ignored the notices put on this talk page (since he doesn't participate in the article talk page) and at notice boards you only came up with disruptive issues which editors at Editor's Assistance already told you were ''irrelevant''. And continued ] on this and other articles. This is your second false charge. See ]. I think I've given you more than enough warnings on all of this at this point. ''] - <small>]</small> 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:19, 27 June 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
 Green Line for Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Gender bias task force
Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
OR noticeboard
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- At this diff: Frankly I've seen blunter language taken to ANI and gotten held up. See also Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors.
- Rewritten to make the point that if you would give a policy based argument maybe this would be over. Refusal to discuss issues when two editors make a point is in itself disruptive. (And LawrenceKhoo hasn't bothered to respond either.) The discuss in BRD is to stop people from getting ticked off and is what collaboration is all about. Refusal is edit warring. Maybe I need to leave that on your talk page. But trying to be more constructive. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Skousen
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you make a false accusation. This is part of the whole ongoing discussion of WP:OR which two editors have objected to. In the past I corrected the Skousen quote which was totally inaccurate per the source. See talk discussion. I also objected to new Skousen WP:OR and tagged it.
- However, I reverted it for the first time yesterday here because you added even more absurd WP:OR re: Salamanca school. If you and LawrenceKhoo really believed you were in the right you would have defended your position at WP:BLPN and WP:ORN. But he ignored the notices put on this talk page (since he doesn't participate in the article talk page) and at notice boards you only came up with disruptive issues which editors at Editor's Assistance already told you were irrelevant. And continued WP:Disruptive editing on this and other articles. This is your second false charge. See User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#SOTO. I think I've given you more than enough warnings on all of this at this point. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)