Argentounge
|
January 2016
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Firefighting has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Firefighting was changed by Argentounge (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911905 on 2016-01-21T00:35:48+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
General Sanctions Notificaiton
editSince you are interested in editing articles related to the Men's Rights Movement, you should be aware that there are general sanctions on that topic. This notification does not imply any wrongdoing. It is simply for your information.
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Using talk pages
editQuick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.
That is explained in the introduction message you were given at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
edit Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Oath Keepers. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: I reverted one edit. I did not do so repeatedly. I do not understand why you are still against the changes as you did not reply on the talk page. I do not think weight really applies for the reasons I outlined their (mainly being that only the person with an opinion knows what that opinion is. Everyone else is merely commenting their opinions on that persons views based on what they've said or done. The primary source is the only one that knows for certain their own opinions so should carry at least some weight. It also is not creating a balance to simply say that someone says they don't believe what others claim they believe following the latter's claims. It just shows they dispute the claims made about them.
- Thanks for the reply. I'll follow up on the article talk page a little later, but the main reason I gave the notice above after one revert was because of your edit summary here - I wasn't sure if you had seen the relevant editing policies yet. In particular the "ceased arguing it" part was concerning since consensus is not "last editor standing". Regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)