User talk:Redhat101
Reverts[edit]
Just as an FYI, this revert wasn't of vandalism, but was of copyediting by an IP who generally edits constructively on Christianity related topics (even if I disagree with some of their views). Stiki is a great tool, but you need to be careful with it not to over-revert constructive edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Nothing to do with views, that editor didn't provided any summery of such major changes, removed references, images and didn't follow WP:MOS.Redhat101 Talk 01:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- They were adding Wikilinks, changing section headings to confirm with the MOS (MOS:HEADCAPS), and adding block quote templates. Even if you have a MOS disagreement with them, it was not a case of clear vandalism and should not have been reverted with Stiki and given the user a template warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Not denying it was a good faith edit, but user didn't followed MOS guideline, excessively used Quote template and didn't provided edit summery.Redhat101 Talk 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Redhat101: While I think we would be best to continue the discussion on my talk page where it began, I should note that I would also like to know which MOS guideline was violated, in addition to the other questions that your attempt at an explanation has raised. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC) cc: TonyBallioni
- (edit conflict) So it wasn't vandalism, which means it was inappropriate to revert as vandalism. None of the things you mentioned are vandalism, and it did actually move the article more into conformity with MOS. The excessive quotations weren't adding more quotations, but taking those that already existed within the article and putting them in the template rather than the messy manual block quotes that the article previously had. I don't really care that much about the MOS/content dispute, but it is just that: a good faith dispute that should be discussed on the talk page, not vandalism to be reverted using a semi-automated tool. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Not denying it was a good faith edit, but user didn't followed MOS guideline, excessively used Quote template and didn't provided edit summery.Redhat101 Talk 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- They were adding Wikilinks, changing section headings to confirm with the MOS (MOS:HEADCAPS), and adding block quote templates. Even if you have a MOS disagreement with them, it was not a case of clear vandalism and should not have been reverted with Stiki and given the user a template warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". In particular, edits should not be marked as minor when "adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article". Thank you. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 12:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TonyBallioni (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Redhat101. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ANI Experiences survey[edit]
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed[edit]
Hello Redhat101! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 22:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Christ myth theory proponents has been nominated for deletion[edit]
Category:Christ myth theory proponents has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)