User talk:CometEncke

File:Tunguska.png

Trees knocked over by the Tunguska blast. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik

No, not this user, just proof of a warped sense of humour and a desire to keep the page visually interesting

The Tunguska event of 1908, probably caused by the impact of a cometary body, has also been postulated by Czechoslovakian astronomer Ľubor Kresák as a fragment of Comet Encke.

A sock?

By the way, your account was just created on 27 December 2015 but you don't sound like a new user; do I know you? STSC (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you presenting any evidence? Or are you just presenting a hanging question? If the latter, why? And is the sudden concern perchance related to the ANI thread that Citobun started[1] and to which I contributed repeatedly? [2] [3] and other diffs? Prior to stumbling across this ANI thread, has my account shown the slightest interest in Hong Kong politics? CometEncke (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your account is only 6 weeks old but obviously you're not a newcomer. Whatever, I don't have the time to investigate; for the time being I'd just leave it to other interested parties. Happy Lunar New Year to you. STSC (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly, this question came not from the numerous Western hot-button topics which I edit, but rather from my look at an unrelated ANI thread. An excellent summary of the tactic of which the above question is a part can be found here: [4]CometEncke (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I also find it kind of interesting how you are even aware of this warning template, for a two-month old account that has never edited eastern european topics before. Can you explain? Because it does look a little strange, know what I mean? Athenean (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazing that all this stuff comes from my forays into Hong Kong and Russia issues, as opposed to my usual US hot button topic areas. My compliments to User:Stephan Schulz, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and other perennial opponents on their senses of comity and fair play. And I mean that genuinely; it's not one of those back-handed "compliments" one sees so frequently around here.CometEncke (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Athenean (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's OK; to me it is blindingly obvious.CometEncke (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. Athenean (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. That said, I'm not going to go through a Q&A session here.CometEncke (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a "Q&A session", I just asked you a simple question. Evasiveness is always a red flag. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there were two questions. I answered one aboved. I've had enough of this and request you to refrain from further posting on my talk page. Thanks.CometEncke (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats and some advice

Congrats on finding your way around so well that you are now able to drop DS warnings on people. That's great progress for barely a two-month old account. However don't forget to drop these equitably to those on the other side of the POV, not only to a single editor, lest it be considered one-sided harassment. Anyway, happy editing! Dr. K. 17:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Any third party who is sufficiently disturbed by my placing a single template on the talk page of a single user is someone I don't need to deal with and who needs to be templated themselves. I hereby request you not to post on my talk page any more. CometEncke (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I'm looking for your discussion in Talk:Donald_Trump on your WP:BRD revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Frequently the person doing the initial bold edit starts said discussion. Feel more than free.CometEncke (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD specifically says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" and "BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information"

Regarding reverts, it says "Consider reverting only when necessary" See Also: WP:ROWN. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

I'm certainly interested to hear any particular concern you have based on wp policy, however if the only reason for the revert is because it wasn't discussed, then I will restore my edits per WP:BOLDYourmanstan (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A split that large should be discussed at the article's talk page before it is done. There are a lot of people involved with the article, and they are going to have opinions. You can check my account history; I don't do a lot of reverting. Even on controversial issues, my usual approach is to talk first. In this case, I felt it was necessary because of the large amount of material involved and the large number of people who are going to be interested. If I leave the split there, and people edit based on it, then a discussion decides against it, going back could be a lot of work. Lastly, a friendly suggestion. It feels like you're burning to get this done. Don't. You will find that you are much more effective as an editor in controversial articles if you take a laid-back approach to this sort of thing. Start the discussion and let it run for a while. See here [5] for an example of a discussion I started after a change I made was partially reverted. That particular discussion turned out to be short and simple, because the issue itself was simple and everyone who came to the discussion agreed with me. Your issue is going to be a lot more complicated than that, and you should expect the discussion to be considerably more involved and to take longer. But if you try to "force" it through by re-reverting, you're starting down a different path, and it's one that tends to piss people around here off, not just me.CometEncke (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)