User talk:Djathinkimacowboy

If I am noted for anything here, I want it to be that I struggle to improve and I keep my word.

This user is signed up for the Feedback Request Service.

User talk:Djathinkimacowboy/Archive 1

HIYA FOLKS! POSTS START HERE, PLEASE TRY TO STAY WITHIN THE POSTING AREA, AND THANKS!

Resuming old habits is a really bad idea

Djathinkimacowboy,

I'm not sure if you've forgotten our discussion from January, or decided to ignore it, or what, but please remember you're not a "regular" editor; you're basically on double secret probation. Edit warring, as you're doing on J. Edgar Hoover, especially the annoying practice of edit warring and at the same time telling the other editor not to edit war, is going back to old habits that you assured me were no longer going to occur. This is not a minor problem, it is a major problem. Therefore, in lieu of blocking you, I'm putting you on a WP:0RR restriction; you are not to revert anyone, anywhere, except for obvious vandalism. For, let's say, one month. If you fail to follow this, then you will be blocked for a month. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring it up for review, but my suspicion is that you'll find everyone else as tired of the way you escalate disagreements as I am.

To head off the obvious question "why isn't Alarbus being put on 0RR?", because he does not have the history of disruption that you do.

Furthermore, I have taken a brief look at Alarbus' recent contributions and found no personal attacks by Alarbus. You can do one of two things; stop accusing people of making personal attacks against you, or give me a recent diff by Alarbus with a personal attack against you in it. Be aware, however, that if there is no personal attack in the diff, then I'm going to block you for resuming the same kind of argue-at-all-costs-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-if-anything-sticks-battleground attitude that you were blocked for in January.

As far as I know, you've had a much better editing experience the last month or so. Please do not resume the old habits, or you won't be here long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I agree with your evaluation and your decision. It seems to me to be more than fair. The situation you reference was line-crossing on my part, and I am appreciative that you find this action toward me more suitable than blocking me indefinitely. Even moreso because I know you believe I deserve to be indefblocked for my past attitude. You have good reason to feel that way. So I accept your decision and your action. I am only sorry that you seemed to expect some sort of 'hollering' or retaliatory rhetoric from me. I can see that what I did was excessive; I would not have responded in any way other than this.

Ref.: If you do not object...The following is for my reference and for the rule to be handy and before me here.—Djathinkimacowboy

"Other revert rules"--(shortcuts: WP:0RR, WP:1RR): Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on particular editors and/or particular pages, by ArbCom or under administrator enforcement, or by the community (see Editing restrictions and General sanctions). These may be phrased using such terms as 1RR ("one-revert rule") or 0RR ("zero-revert rule"). A "one-revert rule" is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page, and sometimes the words "24-hour period" are also replaced by "1 week". A zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purposes of the three-revert rule). Editors can also voluntarily agree to abide by a stricter standard on reverting such as 1RR or 0RR, either in response to problems in a particular area, or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.