User talk:Petzl

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding[edit]

Questions about the article itself are always welcome (I answered your other post there). Thanks for contributing here! Jokestress (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

In response to your question and comments on my talk page:

In very general, following wp:BRD works... one wp:BOLDly makes a change... someone wp:reverts it... then the parties discuss to reach wp:consensus.
In this case, the anon is one of a couple of groups of individuals who pursue very aggressive agendas on this and related articles. There is *extensive* debate on the talk pages of the the Lanza and Biocentrism articles that might shed light on the problems. I did make a change, quoting the content of the article, but reverting the anon's edit would be unproductive (and somewhat-edit-war-ish). If you feel strongly enough, it might be worth pursuing on the talk page. The quote is wp:peacockish, but I suspect that removing it will require an wp:RfC... a broader consensus than just those of us who watch the article can reach. Hope that helps. I hope you will continue to edit, and not let these kinds of speed bumps stop you. :)- Sinneed 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Wexler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Oliver (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) 10:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben Carson[edit]

Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. When there is an established consensus and you wish to make a change, you can be bold and do so. But if that edit is disputed, the article should be reverted back to the established consensus and the editors should discuss the proposed changes on the Talk Page to see if there exists a new consensus for any of the proposed changes. You have been reverted by three separate editors who disagree with your proposed edit. Instead of continuing to try and make your disputed edits, you should seek to work with other editors on the Talk Page and come to an understanding of what changes there might be a consensus for from other editors on the site. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to leave in any valid smaller changes in after you've already made major changes to the article structure (despite having those major changes reverted by 2 other editors), so my only choice is to revert everything. I'm sorry you wasted your time, but you've been here long enough to know how it works and you were told multiple times about the need to build consensus before making major disputed edits. What you should do is make edits in a stepwise manner over time, starting with the smaller changes which are not likely to be disputed, and give other editors time to review them. - Maximusveritas (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I replied at my page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There is often debate between deletionists and inclusionists. Over time things start to get chopped down as more events happen in an individual's life and the older events get put in perspective. If there's a problem with balance, that can be addressed too, but an argument needs to be made about specific problems. I doubt anyone would have a problem with you removing that description of Gooding. If you start with small edits like that, you can generally get broad agreement and go from there. If anything is disputed/reverted, consensus works by first discussing the issue on the Talk Page among those actively editing/watching the page, but then if there is no clear consensus, the wider community can be involved by alerting them on a noticeboard. I'm likely more of an inclusionist than you are, but I'm just as interested in seeing articles be NPOV. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2013 (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) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Petzl. 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)

Recent addition to List of Google Easter eggs[edit]

Thanks for adding information to the above mentioned article; I have removed your addition since it was unreferenced and impossible (without researching outside Wikipedia) to confirm or deny. If you can please provide a reliable reference, feel free to put it back. Cheers.

Also and not entirely aside: your edit summary "Added reference" was a little misleading; it is common practice on Wikipedia to refer to "citations" as "references" (and vice versa), and you actually added neither (ironic). Please be more accurate when informing other editors of your actions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)