User talk:Hayek79

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

Hayek79, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Hayek79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Threads[edit]

Hey, just a heads up that one editor that sits on the Threads page has reverted your edit about Jane's baby being deformed. The editor is tenacious in this regard, frequently expunging any and all mention to her baby being deformed, which as you rightly pointed out on the talk page, is clearly visible. Indeed, if her baby was not deformed, it raises the question - As jane knew the baby was stillborn while it was lifelessly being bundled up by the mid-wife, why did jane then scream in horror at the sight of the baby when she pulled back the cloth? Please reply to the talk page of the article and thanks for your edit! 86.44.238.169 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I've only just noticed your comment. I reverted the edit a few days ago and have added the page to my watchlist. I have also provided citation. If he continues to do this how might we go about finding a solution? Hayek79 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies about the late reply, I noticed the ongoing debate on the talk page of Threads and the edit history and see that perhaps Cooper has a point. However as you and I both know the movie is intentionally ambiguous about the nature of the baby, honestly, why would a mother who's just been through a post-nuclear war world and probably seen some horrors in her day without ever screaming, feel the need to scream in horror at the sight of a baby she most likely already knew was dead? Ruth's response is only rational if the baby is severely deformed, given the context. The writer of the movie and director of the scene knew that, and created the intentional ambiguity. That is why we have loads of websites and reviews that state the baby is deformed, because that is the subliminal message of her scream.
So as a solution I believe we have sufficiently strong references to make a section on the Threads page saying something to the effect - Despite it being a common interpretation of the last scene of the docudrama due to Ruth's reaction to the sight of her baby,(our refs go here) Ruth's baby is not deformed in the script.(his refs)
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.232.17 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marling School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ofsted Report for Marling School]", ''Ofsted Government Agency''. URL last accessed on 2009-06-03].</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7896520.stm School safety 'failings'

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hubert Lagardelle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • local chamber of commerce. Like many other contemporary French revolutionary unionists, such as ([[Gustave Hervé]] and [[Georges Valois]], he left the labour movement and developed a tendency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Press TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. 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) 08:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Your proposed changes to the Labour Party article have both been discussed and rejected before. Please use the talk page rather than simply changing the article. Next time you get a warning for edit warring. ----Snowded TALK 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm uninterested in whether it has been discussed before, achieveing consensus among four people who bother to read the posts doesn't improve my case, that having already been achieved with reference to the sources provided. The party ideology and position in the infobox is unsupported as you left it, and although the ideology section is well referenced almost all of those refences actually support my case. The first 6 discuss the abolition of Clause IV and the abandonment of "socialism" in electoral manifestos, and the remaining 15 discuss the Labour transition from socialism: "From the late-1980s onwards, the party has adopted free market policies,[17] leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic[18][19][20][21] or the Third Way, rather than democratic socialist.[19][20][22][23][24]"

You may be uninterested but Wikipedia is. You can't decide this for yourself you have to reach consensus ----Snowded TALK 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labour Party (UK). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You've now been formally warned, insert that material again without first getting consensus on the talk page and you have a probably ban from editing ----Snowded TALK 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)—

I notice you chose not to respond to my argument Hayek79 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See talk page, that argument has been responded to before by several editors ----Snowded TALK 13:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a response. Hayek79 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, the place to discuss arguments is on the talk page of the article itself. If you want to persist in this that is where you go. ----Snowded TALK 13:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And that is where I have gone, kindly respond. Hayek79 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, having scanned your responses to previous discussions your responses seem to fall into line with your "personal" opinions rather than evidence provided. The evidence available points to a Labour Party that has, since 1994 moved considerably to the economic-right. Does "identify[ying] as a Democratic Socialist" have anything to do with your "reluctance" to have that phrase removed from the Labour Party infobox? Hayek79 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Personal union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Stuart. 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) 09:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 your 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring as I didn't reinstate it the third time, can you remove this please Hayek79 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RolandR (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)