User talk:Limestoneforest
Limestoneforest, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Limestoneforest! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Welcome!
|
Revert war[edit]
Taking a look at [1], you appear to be in a revert war. You have already changed the article, then reverted 3 times. Doing more than 3 reverts on an article in a single 24 hour period will usually get you an instant block from editing. I strongly suggest you take your dispute to the talk page of the article and stop editing it altogether for a day or two. It is unlikely you will receive any other warning before you are blocked from editing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted your change the first time. I have attempted to start a dialogue about it on the talk page of the Peter Schweizer article. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits to 2014 Crimean crisis[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Skr15081997 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
April 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Moore (Canadian politician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- so" to Vancouver radio station [[CKWX|News1130]] reporter Sara Norman. His comments were criticized[{who}} as “dismissive” and Scrooge-like, especially given the Christmas season. Initially the minister
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. So that we don't get into a situation of people undoing each others' edits, could you please offer your input to the discussion regarding the Putin video? Thank-you. It Is Me Here t / c 12:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
RT[edit]
The RT article is a particularly difficult one, which due to edit wars has been protected for most of the last 10 weeks. The last thing it needs right now is someone who appears to have little understanding of this site making wholesale changes. I am going to have to revert some of your contributions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been on Wikipedia for the last few months and I do have more than a little understanding of how this site works, so I don't know why you feel the need to condescend to my Wikipedia experience. I've seen your reverts and, quite frankly, don't see why they are needed, although I'd be open a discussion as to why you think otherwise.Limestoneforest (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies if I was a little short with you. Many of the contributors to this article have strong views on one side or another. Another edit-war here will result in at least another month of edit protection. Even the changes that have been made already will probably cause problems in the next few days. I don’t know if you have read Talk:RT (TV network)#Propaganda tool and the subsequent discussions, but that was just over adding a short line to the lead mentioning propaganda. Removing large parts of the lead is likely to piss people off. An improved lead can be defended.
- As much as I detest RT, this article cannot be overly negative. A Reception section containing tiny praise and enormous criticism sub-sections is not the way to go. A reorganization on the scale you attempted is going to need a proposal on the talkpage with sufficient time allowed for people to discuss. I will try to put something together soon.
- My advice to you is start small and move slowly. Get to know the article, both content and history. Read some of the sources and check that the content fits the references. If you have new content to add, ensure it is backed up by a reliable source. I’m hoping that gradual change and abiding by WP policy will get this article to be a truer representation of its subject.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be making disruptive edits on the Oligarchy and Plutocracy articles, such as this edit removing sourced text.
Contrary to your assertion in your revert, subverting the BRD cycle, that there is no consensus on the Oligarchy article with respect to the material you have reverted, there is consensus and the text has been the subject of much discussion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
By copying this message to my Talk page, you have demonstrated that you have yet to read or understand the WP:BRD cycle. Failure to engage on the Talk page while making a false assertion about consensus established on the Talk page, even after being reverted, is disruptive of the consensus building process, and not a sign of collaborative editing.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In light of the fact that you have been trolling my Talk page, I'm introducing you to this essay What is a troll?.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- For somebody who likes to fight, you have thin skin. You're getting pissy because I'm (supposedly) trolling your talkpage, but you don't see a problem trying to troll my talkpage. A question: how did you know were to look for that page?Limestoneforest (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014[edit]
Your recent editing history at Plutocracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - MrX 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
City of London[edit]
The simple answer as to why the City of London does NOT have its own section on the Plutocracy page (and the US does), is that the (ancient not modern) CofL is exactly 1 square mile and very little has been written about its (odd) voting system, which anyhow is for LOCAL issues ONLY. Find sources that write about the UK generally being plutocratic & then create a UK section!Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC) … ps the CofLon has a total residental population of approx. 7000 people … does that explain why it doesn't get its own section.Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
AN/I[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Permanent link to ANI discussion: [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
June 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)