- 1 Mistakes on Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
- 2 August 2013
- 3 September 2013
- 4 March 2014
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for May 4
- 6 Removing AfD template
- 7 May 2014
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for May 13
- 9 A page you started (Onkar Ghate) has been reviewed!
- 10 Overlinking
- 11 Owen Jones
- 12 Edits on Taylor Swift.
- 13 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 14 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Mistakes on Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
You've been making some mistaken edits to this article, and I'd like you to stop. First, you've twice reverted a change without explanation, ignoring the fact that it included a high-quality supporting source and comes from a parallel change in the parent article. Second, you've marked your revert as minor both times, which amounts to insulting me by accusing me of vandalism. If you have an opinion, you're welcome to join the discussion. But until you, don't edit that page again. MilesMoney (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. A similar message has been posted on the talk page of the other editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Thank you. Again, using edit summaries to label edits as vandalism is improper. Please review the policy. This is the specific dif: . – S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Adding what people are interested in or their favorites/hobbies is not notable. This is not a fansite LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen Greenhalgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Town (ward) (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.
Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Patriotic Socialist Party. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about , where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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". Thank you. --John (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patriotic Socialist Party. 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kira Peikoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graduate (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.
A page you started (Onkar Ghate) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Onkar Ghate, Renren8123!
Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
AusLondonder To make it consistent with the other categories, in which he is specified as English.
Edits on Taylor Swift.
I don't think that the fact that she identifies as a feminist is relevant to the article. Nothing really sticks out about that, this world is filled with feminists. Just being a feminist doesn't really seem notable enough. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Weegeerunner So her view on the founding fathers is relevant but not her view on feminism? Feminism has everything to do with male/female relationships, which is what her music is mostly about, and she herself clearly thinks it's important. Her view on the founding fathers is much less relevant. Renren8123 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- We aren't talking about feminism, or that. Maybe the founding fathers thing shoudn't be there either. But the main point is, I see nothing blatantly important about her being a feminist. (in terms of wiki). Weegeerunner (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Weegeerunner I was merely trying to explain why her feminism is relevant to her notability. But, OK. I won't reinstate the line about feminism. But I will remove the line about the founding fathers, since that is clearly much less relevant than her feminism. Renren8123 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I don't think it's relevant is because her songs are about relationships, and all relationships are not male/female. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)