User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2016/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nice Work
Appreciate your work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.111.235 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Knee-jerk reinstatement
Hi Vice regent, I would say that this kind of reinstatement is not acceptable, especially when the article is under special restrictions. You can only reinstate what you think are good edits. Calling me "disrespectful" to the other editor does not have a place in the mainspace edits or edit summaries, and doing so without evidence counts as WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have a valid complaint, you need to make it at WP:ANI.
I also urgently need you to clean up the edit because the article is currently in a terrible state because of your reinstatement.
Pining RegentsPark to advise you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You first made a blanket revert, where you reverted the work of multiple users. I was the one who said you should "sort thru good and bad edits". And after I made my revert, I went on to make some edits that you had asked for on the talk page. You did no such thing. You just blanket reverted and didn't actually go back and correct your revert.VR talk 17:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Read WP:BRD. It is perfectly legitimate to revert bold edits, when they are against policy and lack adequate rationale. It is not my job to sort through them. When you reinstate the edits, they become your responsibility. You haven't even remotely addressed the concerns I have mentioned on the talk page, and there are others that are too numerous to mention. I will wait for RegentsPark to come back and sort through this mess. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- In relation to the edits your reverted, you say "It is not my job to sort through them". But you also say "When you reinstate the edits, they become your responsibility." You can't have it both ways. You can't say I'm responsible for my reverts, but it not your "job" to look carefully at the content of your revert.
- "there are others that are too numerous to mention" If you can't even mention your concerns, I can't address them. I'm not a mind reader.VR talk 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You first made a blanket revert, where you reverted the work of multiple users. I was the one who said you should "sort thru good and bad edits". And after I made my revert, I went on to make some edits that you had asked for on the talk page. You did no such thing. You just blanket reverted and didn't actually go back and correct your revert.VR talk 17:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)