|Search user languages|
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot.
Your recent editing history at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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.
My Added comments
- Bold edit .... I don't know when two blogs were added to the arcticle
- Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
- Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")... The first un-discussed re-revert of this sort is always the first salvo in and edit war
For reference sources at issue include
However let's not discuss these here. Article talk of the WP:RSN would be better venues. It's dangerous, by the way, to edit war on an American politics article after recieving the DS alert notice (see prior thread on your talk page) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- So the thing to do, would be to self revert, and discuss these blogs either at article talk or the noticeboard. Meanwhile, thank you for the addition of real RSs.
- Uh, you're the one in the wrong here. I'm reverting destructive edits to the status quo. Stop removing sources just because you disagree with them. — Omegatron (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- O! i am friggin' intrigued that you know about this Burlington IRV issue. being from Burlington, having voted in that election, and having written about IRV vs. Condorcet (and, at one time, being a friend of the candidate who got screwed by IRV), this is an issue close to my heart. are you involved in the Election Methods mailing list? (send me an email or facebook, i think you know who i am.) bestest, 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
i didn't know you were back at Wikipedia. for some reason i thought you left it.
so i took a look at your contribs and see that it got thin around 2010 (with a 10 month gap) and then slowly the frequency of edits increased.
so welcome from a friend who dares not identify himself lest trouble happens. i do DSP. you might remember me.
so greetings from anonymous.
- Yeah I left, but now I've been contributing again a little, but I'm not as invested as I used to be. You can see a graph here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-yearcounts/en.wikipedia.org/Omegatron
- I suspect I know who you are, and we still interact on other sites/wikis/mailing lists under different usernames. Not sure if you realize which names are me. :D — Omegatron (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Path loss—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nanson's method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)