User talk:Rockypedia: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Rockypedia/Archive 3) (bot |
→User Zaostao: new section |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
== User Zaostao == |
|||
I am aware of this neo-nazi connection with the alt-right movement and found a source which illustrates this. But this user has removed it and will probably do so again. He or she is trying to whitewash the article. --[[User:Donenne|Donenne]] ([[User talk:Donenne|talk]]) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:07, 1 October 2016
SD channels concern
Rockypedia --
Thanks for your input. I knew there would be a better way to word those statements.
"(HD feed downgraded to letterboxed 480i for SD sets)"
I agree with your revision, but I'd just replace 'SD sets' with 'SDTVs'.
I will only be applying this edit to tv cable networks with the total letterboxing transition in effect.
Thank you!
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CFredkin (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- This response is to note that your spurious attempt at intimidation has been replied to, and the evidence shows clearly that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring was not violated. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out here that CFredkin (talk) has withdrawn his complaint after realizing he had been called out for formulating a baseless accusation. It's still my opinion that he should face sanctions for this action. I have not received any apology for his behavior toward me, despite him withdrawing his complaint. I'm going to let this exchange live here on my talk page forever, if only to point out that if you look at his own talk page history, you can see numerous examples of editors attempting to engage him about his edit warring, and his own erasing of all those attempts at communication. It's clear to me, at least, that this editor is not here to build a better encyclopedia, there's a mountain of evidence that supports that, and the previous block for sockpuppetry that was handed to him did not send enough of a message. Rockypedia (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions
Greetings, I wanted to make you aware that the discretionary sanctions currently in effect at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 require that "all editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Pls self-rv this edit which restored content that has been challenged. If you have concerns about formatting issues, you can address them in a separate edit. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- CFredkin, please stop implying this kind of edit is not allowed. WP:1RR is the rule and you know it. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:NeilN I don't believe that statement is consistent with the text I pasted above from the DS header, the discussion here with another admin, and these edits by another admin. However please let me know if my understanding of the DS requirements is mistaken. I have no interest in continuing to adhere to an overly restrictive version myself if it's not universally applied. And I think it would be reasonable to ask you to intervene in the future if another admin tries to enforce the more restrictive version against me. OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- CFredkin, I came across too harsh and I apologize. I thought your revert included all of Volunteer Marek's edits (which would make you guilty of what you stated above as well) but they didn't. So yes, Rockypedia, please be especially careful when you are re-reverting back in material that has been challenged. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:NeilN I don't believe that statement is consistent with the text I pasted above from the DS header, the discussion here with another admin, and these edits by another admin. However please let me know if my understanding of the DS requirements is mistaken. I have no interest in continuing to adhere to an overly restrictive version myself if it's not universally applied. And I think it would be reasonable to ask you to intervene in the future if another admin tries to enforce the more restrictive version against me. OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Rockypedia, can you please reconcile the above with this edit this edit? --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard . Lizzymartin (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter J. Liacouras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple of Apollo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User Zaostao
I am aware of this neo-nazi connection with the alt-right movement and found a source which illustrates this. But this user has removed it and will probably do so again. He or she is trying to whitewash the article. --Donenne (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)