User talk:Epischedda

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

Coyote article[edit]

Hello. Your first few edits seemed ok, but then you got much more aggressive and have removed everything from the article dealing with pets. Coyotes attack cats and small dogs. There are plenty of sources for this. Your latest edit removed sourced material, and I will be replacing that. Beach drifter (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, two things to say. First, you earlier edited an archive of my talk page. Please be sure to leave me messages on my actual talk page, or it is unlikely that I will ever see them. Second, please do not change edits I have made to a talk page, as you did when you changed the section heading I added. This is against wikipedia policy, as it has changed the meaning of what I wrote. See WP:TPO for details. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I left my remark where I did because that's where I had to if my response was to appear in context with your original remark; I suppose next time I can just leave a note in the "fresh" portion of the talk page referencing a more detailed remark back in the archive (otherwise it would seem very cumbersome for you to follow what I'm talking about in my remark).
The discussion title is part of a public forum and I have every right to edit it when it violates Wikipedia policy. In fact it is you who violate Wikipedia policy where it admonishes editors - under "Behavior That is Unacceptable" - to "Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent ...", and where, under "Good Practices", advice is to "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Please keep the discussion headings impersonal and impartial please - it's the topic and related comments that are at issue, not the writer, thus I have again removed my username from the discussion heading while leaving clear, in the body of the discussion, the gist of the original heading unchanged (though I'm not real crazy about the repeated use of my username there either; you'll notice in my latest remarks I didn't refer to you by username once - I would appreciate the same courtesy since it's obvious which remarks a signed-in user has made, and if he isn't signed in - well, how're you then going to refer to him by username in the topic heading?).
Your user name is hardly a personal detail. You made the edits, I was asking for input about your edits, I used your user name, not any personal information. I was using the talk page to try to avoid an edit war. As I stated at the talk page, if you would of edited the page in a less aggressive and biased manner, then there would never have been an issue. If you want to tone the language down, great. Wholesale removing of content is absolutely not going to fly. Your new argument that it is all about poor sourcing is not going to fly either. Look at your original edit summaries, unfortunately it is clear you were having a content issue, not a sourcing issue. If you want better sources, add them, but don't remove information that is obviously true after thirty seconds of research. Beach drifter (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Coyote[edit]

Discuss the page, please. Edit warring does not help. Other editors have been doing what amounts to edit warring, but what you've done is certainly enough for you to be blocked from editing: reverting more than three times in 24 hours. —innotata 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Collateralized mortgage obligation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)