User talk:PeterTheFourth: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GoldenRing (talk | contribs)
Line 44: Line 44:
:{{replyto|GoldenRing}} Hi GoldenRing. Would you please explain why you are placing this topic ban on me? [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|GoldenRing}} Hi GoldenRing. Would you please explain why you are placing this topic ban on me? [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::The reasons are clearly stated in the AE discussion, but to reiterate: For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations; you know very well that twitter is not a source that would ever be used in an article. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::The reasons are clearly stated in the AE discussion, but to reiterate: For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations; you know very well that twitter is not a source that would ever be used in an article. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|GoldenRing}} What portion of what I restored was a BLP violation, and why? [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 12:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:01, 4 September 2019

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.


Edit warring notice

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talkcontribs)

Andy Ngo talk page

I don't care if you've read my comments, but you appear not to have read the source you're discussing. Either way, your argument with Galestar is now far removed from the goal of improving the article. This Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this is not appropriate to post on an article talk page. The article talk page is not there for you to argue one specific other editor. If you must argue, move it to one or another or your talk pages. I know that by getting involved I've now partially responsible for the situation, so I won't comment on it again. Also, I apologize that my initial response was unclear, and rude. That was not the correct way to approach the situation, I'm sorry. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rock Canyon: Apology accepted - no big deal, nobody's perfect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not restore that BLP violating content on the talk.-- Deepfriedokra 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP if you believe that discussing on talk whether or not to mention the rape accusations against Alec Holowka, or linking to this tweet, violates our policies on biographies of living people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that Twitter is a reliable source suitable for allegations. I thought BLP applied in talk pages.-- Deepfriedokra 01:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I sincerely don't know how to address what is either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. It's beyond the level of effort I want to put in today. If you find this confusing, apply yourself more. I'm not going to help you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an AE thread: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PeterTheFourth. --Pudeo (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop by...

...to say Illegitimi non carborundum. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate that a lot. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Per this discussion, you are banned from all pages and edits related to living persons (as that term is used in the policy on biographies of living persons) for six months, subject to the usual exceptions. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Hi GoldenRing. Would you please explain why you are placing this topic ban on me? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are clearly stated in the AE discussion, but to reiterate: For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations; you know very well that twitter is not a source that would ever be used in an article. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: What portion of what I restored was a BLP violation, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]