User talk:Bonewah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

3RR[edit]

For your information: while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring, you are not currently over WP:3RR in the article you've recently been editing and warned about, since the warning stated that you did more than 3 reverts "in a couple of days", but the 3RR rule is specifically about more than 3 reverts in the span of 24 hours (although WP:GAMING should obviously not happen). You were also previously warned about being "way over 3RR", but the same applied: you had been editing over the span of several days. The user who has been warning you made a similar number of reverts. I'm telling you this just in case you are unfamiliar with policy. If someone does exceed 3RR, they can be reported at WP:ANEW after warning them. LjL (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your editing at Laffer curve is problematical. Please take a look at WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD, which is a strategy and not policy. 7&6=thirteen () 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen I thought I had been clear that I wasn't endorsing edit warring with the "while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring", but apparently I wasn't clear enough, since there was a further revert by Bonewah. Nevertheless, the other user proceeded to revert again and to accuse Bonewah of 3RR breach again, even though Bonewah is still not technically over 3RR, while the other user now is. Therefore I have reported the other user because I don't like to put up with that sort of unjustified arrogance. LjL (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I warned the other editor again. 7&6=thirteen () 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
For my part, i handled that situation poorly. I should have listened to LJL and walked away for a bit. The problem im having here is that there seems to be a consensus for the edit I was re-adding, but Lipsquid keeps reverting it and accusing others of edit warring. If you look at the bottom of the economists poll section you will see that at least 3 other editors agree that this material should be left out, and that is on top of an RfC that i opened in an attempt to resolve this issue which was closed in favor of remove. The edit in question was itself the result of a compromise from supply side economics talk which lipsquid himself agreed to, see my comment here. Clearly edit warring is not the way to resolve this issue, but good faith discussion doesnt seem to be working either. If you have any advice on how to proceed, that would be greatly appreciated. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I would honestly not say there is consensus one way or the other at the moment. What does irk me are the continuous claims from Lipsquid that there is consensus for inclusion when that is clearly not the case. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is consensus against inclusion, either. The latest quote he's been adding just sounds silly within the article. But I had recently stepped away from the whole thing, because last time I had reverted Lipsquid, that resulted in him reverting several of my edits on completely unrelated articles. It felt like a way to intimidate me; I reported him on WP:ANI, but that just put me in a bad light because other people I had had bad experiences with ganged up against me, and nobody would speak up for me. Sometimes things just happen that way, and I don't have great advice aside from "wait and think before doing". Now I'm speaking up about the whole thing again at the edit warring report page, since there is some actual administrator attention. It might be a better time to bring up these issues. LjL (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think my principal problem is that the edit war looked sort of WP:LAME - the presence or absence of the Thaler quotation (that was being fought over) doesn't really contribute to much to the understanding of the topic, certainly less than this. Anyway, there is clear remorse shown and I am happy to believe you won't be continuing the edit war, so I'm happy to unblock. We'll see how Lipsquid reacts to their own block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: far from me to try to taint an admin with content! but for a bit of context, yes, the huge war about the presence or absence of that small quote is silly, yet the quote is part of a more long-winded attempt to keep an entire paragraph. This paragraph is basically about a survey to some economists about whether the Laffer curve scenario applies to the (then-)current US situation, but it doesn't really cover whether the Laffer curve in itself is correct or incorrect as a general theory. By quoting one of economists responding "that's a Laffer!" at the survey question, the proponents are furthering an attempt to use the survey to undermine the validity of the Laffer curve in general - and doing so in the lead of the article as well as in other related articles. The survey is sourced, but it's being used to show something else, and in an WP:UNDUE (WP:LEAD, WP:CRITICISM) way. This is all just to say... the quote is short and the reader may not even notice it, but accepting it there will inevitably mean accepting more. LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
My problem with all this is that every attempt ive made at a good faith resolution has been thrown back in my face. Again, the edit i was pushing was itself the result of a compromise that Lipsquid himself agreed to, only to change it later without explanation. When i asked what the reason was for the change he ignored me. Im totally ok with editors changing their minds, but i think that a)if you do, you should explain your reasoning in such a way that the other editors involved can meaningfully respond, and b) you should off on editing the article until you have at least tried to reach a new consensus. Neither of those things happened and that, to me, is very frustrating. Bonewah (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

February 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Laffer curve. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock|{{strikethrough|I will abide by the terms of the block, but would like to respond to user LJL on his talk page.}} per below, ill respond here.}}

I'm not an admin, but I'm afraid that's not a valid unblock request. But you can reply to me just fine here... I have your talk page in my watchlist. I actually much prefer to keep conversations on one page instead of jumping back and forth between two user pages. LjL (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

Incident report - Fired US Attorneys[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I stress that I respect your good intentions, but find that I object to your extensive revisions, while not wanting to reargue the points again. The incident report is entirely premature to be sure; I hope for advice on how to deal with the general problem of political articles. Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Shipwecks[edit]

Trophy.png Shipwrecks
I'm glad you like shipwrecks. I love Titanic and mostly World War II battleships like the Bismarck. Dallas G. Spencer (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bonewah. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)