User talk:Baxter42

Welcome

Hello, Baxter42! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Star Trek

This edit, am I to assume it is you? If so there is the agreed concept of consensus by silence, as ridiculous as it may sound to you. There have been over a thousand editors edit the Star Trek page, of those you are the only one who wants the remove that sentence (although you have now been reverted by two different editors), as these other editors edited the page and left the sentence in then I can assume they have no problem with it, by not removing it there was a consensus by silence. When you took the sentence out I put it back in, meaning that I think it fits in the article. Your most recent edit was also reverted by another editor, now there is an active consensus (3:1) to keep that sentence. If you wish to remove it you would need to demonstrate on the talk page that a consensus exists to remove it. Also FYI don't post edit summaries in CAPS LOCK, AS IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING, and shouting doesn't belong in a sensible discussion. Also remember to log in, and sign with ~~~~ on talk pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lynne Stewart. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HalfShadow 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

great! well, i've lost faith in wikipedia before, and it was restored. maybe this will be like that. we'll see. Baxter42 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to warn both sides equally, since it takes two to edit-war and I've done that. Take it to the talk page, please. Discuss it there. HalfShadow 03:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

okay, that talk page is a mess, but i'll try anyway, meanwhile i'll continue to fight for what i take to be the prevailing point off the talk page on the main article, since i have little other power. Baxter42 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Baxter, I'm sorry to see that you have now reverted four times within a 24 hour period. I've communicated to you with regard to your reversions, assuming good faith on your part. Your continued reversions suggest, unfortunately, bad faith on your part. Please note that, as I've indicated before, you should not be deleting RS-supported material that is relevant and what the person is notable for in large part from the lede, as you have been doing. Such deletions, under wp:vandalism, can constitute vandalism under wp's guidelines. Specifically, removing significant parts of a page's content without a valid reason, or with a frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content in an edit summary, is specifically considered vandalism under wikipedia's guideline.

I have warned you previously, as has Half, and am sorry to see that you continued and violated our rules against edit warring. As to your questions, obviously the fact that the person was convicted of a felony is extraordinarily relevant to their bio -- that is not the sort of thing you should be deleting from a lede, as you have done four times today. As far as your requiring comparison to other bios, I refer you -- yet again -- to wp:otherstuffexists.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

and i give up. have fun with your little kingdom! (by the way in rational conversation, we respond to relevant points. but eh, you've got no need for that now!)