User talk:CordialGreenery

Welcome!

Hello, CordialGreenery, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Delme Bryn-Jones. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rekonedth (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hey just stopping by to say be careful, try and focus on the content for the articles and how sources support them. It is nothing but trouble when focusing on users per WP:PERSONAL. Also watch that WP:3RR bright line.

That said I think there is a case to be made for changing it to far-left and expanding the body for the militant stuff and violence they do. Lets see what we can come up with on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. See you on the talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah welcome to American Politics, it is a crazy place on Wikipedia. Articles are slow to move and users are fast to noticeboards. It takes some getting used to and can be frustrating at times. If you ever have any questions just let me know, I'm happy to help. PackMecEng (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Bradv (Result: ). Thank you. Bradv🍁 05:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Just went back to self-revert, saw that you did it for me. Let's work this out on the talk pageCordialGreenery (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that if you're blocked for edit warring you won't actually be able to discuss this on the talk page, right? Bradv🍁 05:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that what you want? CordialGreenery (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What I want is for editors to use talk pages to discuss things, and not to edit war. You may have a point to your edits, but there's not much point in discussing them if you're just going to keep changing the article back to your preferred version. If you had taken the BRD approach instead, you would be able to participate in the discussion. Also, please don't blank templates without reading them - they contain valuable information and advice. Bradv🍁 05:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's what you want, than participate on the talk page that I created for discussing this. Instead of templating me and pretending I didn't read it before blanking it. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you did read the notices? Then why did you continue to edit war? And why are you now removing the non-template message I left you instead as "not important"? This is troublesome behaviour. Bradv🍁 05:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'd like to continue the discussion over at the BAMN talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

As the notice says, this is just a notice to let you know that extra editing restrictions are in force for post-1932 American politics and related people. I do note, however, that you have made at least four reverts today at BAMN, breaking even the normal 3RR rule. Go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

BAMN

What part of 3RR is unclear to you? Please self-revert or you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Get a handle on yourself. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that expression. Does it have something to do with the more-than-three times you have made reversions at that article? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be able to read. Perhaps apply that ability to the talk page of the article in question and realize there was a discussion about this before coming unhinged on an editors talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are never an excuse for 3RR violations, and you would know that if you knew how to read. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page resolutions reached after discussion and consensus, resulting in modified edits are absolutely grounds for editing. The edit was not a revert, it was a new edit that was agreed upon. I've also warned you on your talk page about your uncivil behavior. Knock it off. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BAMN

When you grow up, "Shabby" is willing to discuss. Until then, Dumbo, your unconstructive changes will continue to be reverted. For the same reasons as before. Which you seem to be too proud or too stupid to understand. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The amount of out-of-line that you have reached is alarming. You have been warned so many timed for this behavior. I'm leaving this up to demonstrate the level of aggression you have reached. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reporting you for a 3RR violation is not harassment

Claiming that editors have harassed you when you clearly violated 3RR shows a lack of good faith and is a personal attack. It makes you look bad. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Being harassed by another editor is harassment. CordialGreenery (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BAMN; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)