User talk:Doctorfacts

Welcome!

Hello, Doctorfacts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

There is a comment here which appears to concern editing in which you have been involved. You may like to read it. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called explosion (implied) is not good enough, you have not named an episode or have brother to write out any scenes and there’s no reason to delete the info that happens with Snake Eyes and Scarlett in that episode and now you just making stuff up —Preceding unsigned comment added by NamelessConsular (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scarlett (G.I. Joe). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been working since August 2009 to get certain information established in Scarlett (G.I. Joe), in the face of numerous other editors who have continually reverted your edits. Personally I know nothing about Scarlett (G.I. Joe), and so I have no opinion as to the accuracy of the edits involved, but I have been asked to help over the process of repeated changes and reversions (known as "edit warring").

Your edits have been reverted in whole or in part by WwwHptt, Acebloo, The Movie Master 1, NamelessConsular (who previously edited from IP address 75.60.208.208), Aleksa Lukic, and several more IP addresses, which look to me as though they probably represent at least two more users. It is clear that there is a substantial body of opinion that your changes are unjustified. When disagreements of this kind take place we have two principles we use to try to stop edit warring and get a settled version of an article: reliable sources and consensus.

Firstly, any information which is disputed must be given references to reliable sources to confirm the information. To get an idea of what sort of sources are suitable you should read WP:RS, if you have not done so.

Secondly, where different editors have different ideas, we try to reach agreement by discussion. Unfortunately sometimes discussion fails to produce agreement, but it should always be tried.

In this case much of your editing is completely without any sources, reliable or otherwise. One sentence which you have repeatedly inserted in the face of repeated removal by others is "It was implied throughout the series that she and Duke were romantically involved". Even if nobody disputed this statement, it is likely that it is a personal judgement, rather than an objectively verifiable fact: how can you tell that it is "implied"? But in fact of course the statement is disputed, and a disputed statement of this kind is certainly not acceptable without reliable sources to back it up.

It is clear that there is a consensus of everybody involved except you against your editing. You have been invited to discuss the matter, but you have not chosen to do so. You have been warned about edit warring, but have continued to do so.

I have concentrated on Scarlett (G.I. Joe), but it does seem that you are also engaged in similar edit warring at Duke (G.I. Joe), and exactly similar remarks apply to your editing of that article.

Please do not continue to put disputed material into the articles without first discussing your changes on the articles' talk pages and attempting to reach consensus. The notice above about edit warring tells you that you may be blocked from editing, but I hope it will not need to come to that. It will be much better if the matter can be resolved by discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply to this on my talk page. I strongly recommend posting your ideas on the article's talk page too. If you and the other editors involved can now discuss the issue then perhaps there will be progress, rather than just endless edit-warring. You said on my talk page "I am uncertain how familiar you are with the animated series". The answer is not at all: as I said, I have no opinion on how valid or invalid your edits are. I have been concerned only with trying to bring an end to futile edit-warring, and the only reason I have become involved at at all is because another editor asked me to help sort things out. Very often it is better for such help to come from an outsider, not involved in the case. Your comments on my talk page look to me perfectly intelligent and reasonable, but I have no opinion on whether they are justified.

I hope that you and the others involved can now discuss this issue and move towards resolving your differences. I shall post a message to the editor who contacted me, telling them that you have shown willing to discuss, and inviting them to do likewise. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page again if you have any questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

It has occurred to me to remind you of what the welcome message above says about putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of comments you add to talk pages. This not only automatically shows other editors who wrote the comment, but also gives them a link back to your talk page, which can often be very useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

I am just writing to remind you of the invitation to discuss Scarlett (G.I. Joe) on its talk page. The time while the article is protected from editing should be an excellent opportunity to sort out the disagreements. That way, when the protection expires, it should be possible to edit the article constructively, rather than returning to edit warring. When you posted to my talk page three days ago you seemed to be indicating a willingness to discuss the issues. I hope you will now do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]