User talk:Arzel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 21 November 2012

Archive 1

New discussion below this line

RFCs

While it is certainly discouraged to do an edit that is being discussed in an RFC, there is nothing that disallows it. Despite that, it's also not an exception to WP:EW. While adding it also isn't an exception to edit warring, in the future it will be better if you just ask me if it appears that a revert might be seen as controversial. It is not better to ask forgiveness...--v/r - T P 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you can see the initial edit was contentious. The santions do not eliminate the ability to revert obviously contentious edits without clear concensus. Ask yourself the merits of the inclusion and the answer is clear. There is a strong desire to imply that Ryan is a liar, ISS has stated several times explicity that Ryan is a liar. When you take this into consideration there is simply no good response other than to remove the edit, and if anything you should have warned the editor which violated the basic principle of RfC which from my previous experience Everyone abides. Arzel (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious edits is not an exception in Wikipedia:EW#3RR_exemptions. Negative information that is well sourced does not count as a WP:BLP exemption either.--v/r - T P 02:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - T P 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All presidential capaign articles are currently under 1RR restrictions, so your second sentence is meaningless. If you had taken control of the situation and not allowed an editor to determine current consensus during the RfC you would have stopped this from being an issue from the beginning. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For civilly adding to the conversation at WT:WikiProject Conservatism#Liberal bias, I hereby present to you this Barnstar. Your contributions, I believe, reflect the best traditions (all be them young) of the Wikipedia editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women

Hello Arzel.

1) The {{db-a7}} doesn't apply, the article is not about individuals, animals, organizations or web content, it is about a claim in a debate, please check the criterion
2) three editors contested speedy deletion (User:Casprings, User:DoriSmith and me), which means the speedy deletion is questionable, please check the talk page
3) anyone except the page creator can contest speedy deletion
4) I'm an admin, but that's not that important

I partly agree with your objections to keep this article. You can take the article to AfD and properly explain your reasons to delete it. Thank you.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive - don't re-add declined CSDs, which can be removed by anyone except the article creator (but especially so in the limit of totally invalid A7s). I see you've recently been topic banned from another American election article, and previously blocked for edit warring on American political articles. Take those actions and this warning to heart - you won't get what you're after by being disruptive; you'll just get blocked. WilyD 06:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on me rather than my problem with the use of WP for political purposes. I appreciate that. Arzel (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted my contribution to this article, again. Please explain where a better organized summation and direct quotes that put things in perspective are in any way a violation of anything. This in an article you are actively trying to eliminate. As I see it, this is your POV pushing too . . . to prevent the truth from being presented. Feel free to nit pick at the words of my own attempts to summarize, but you have no right to hide the essence of the sourced information. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote here for deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2012_(2nd_nomination)#Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates.2C_2012

Since you commented on the talk page, I thought you might want to be informed. I found it by accident. Mugginsx (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Arzel. You have new messages at Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Message added 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paris1127 (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council I invited you to edit the content I contributed. I am again offering you the opportunity to (look at it in article history) find where there is any POV I inserted and clean it up. Lets find some room for compromise. My intent is just to get the truth of the matter presented. The truth as presented by reliable sources, about what the American Legislative Exchange Council really does. So lets try to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of what the other media of the world are reporting. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney on FEMA

Please join the conversation on the Political positions of Mitt Romney Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy

It is sourced and a reasonable important aspect of the storm, as it will have an effect on a national election. Casprings (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you seem to have no concept of historical context? Arzel (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon?

This [1] makes no sense. If you had something to say, do please try re-saying it, but not on a third parties talk page, that would be impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not directed at you, I have since made it more clear. Sorry for the confusion. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfingers

I'm sorry for reverting your comment on the War on Women talk page. I apparently clicked rollback while viewing the page history and did not realize it. I have since restored your edit. - Mr X 03:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

you are the one who keeps reverting an accurate description of a location i.e. carlsbad, ca not me.

it is a known affluent resort town. throughout wikipedia locations are described as "affluent" or with other adjectives and there is no source provided. why are you labeling correct information "unsourced" and "POV" is the real question. and why in the first place did you remove the word affluent when it accurately describes carlsbad (i should know i live there after all). seems like your a conservative with an agenda but please correct me if i'm wrong. get back to me, thanks. Tjelsund (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

update: just responded to this dispute on the se cupp talk page. take care. Tjelsund (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 update: just responded to this dispute on the se cupp talk page. take care. [[User:Tjelsund|Tjelsund]] ([[User talk:Tjelsund|talk]]) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
-== November 2012 ==
-[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at [[:Steve King]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[WP:REVERT|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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
-To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[WP:BRD|BRD]] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].  In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)