User talk:StBlark
StBlark, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi StBlark! 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! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC) |
May 2015
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Unseen character. 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 discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 99.192.92.80 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
In looking over your contributions at Unseen character and Talk: Unseen character, I first notice that you are a new editor, so I will try to give you some advice rather than rebuking you. You aren't being very civil, and civility is very important in Wikipedia, especially if you want to persuade. Reasoned persuasion works better than harsh assertion. IP addresses, as was mentioned, are often dynamic, and the IP editor was not trying to pose as multiple editors. I would prefer that IP editors register accounts, but Wikipedia policy is that they are not required to do that. You were out of line in suggesting that User:ONUnicorn was a sockpuppet. If you couldn't see that he or she has an edit history going back to 2006, there might be an issue with how you are viewing contribution histories, and you might be able to get advice about that at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. A request has now been made for moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You are not required to participate, but I encourage you to participate. If you do participate, the moderator will require civility. Please reread some of your posts and think about how you would feel if the wording that you have used was directed toward you. Civility is not only the rule, but a good idea; it works better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Okay, thank you, I will give it a go over at WP:DRN today or tomorrow probably. I didn't realize that "sock puppet" was derogatory, I thought it was just a casual term for someone who presents himself in a variety of identities. However, I am chastised and will your suggestions and advice to heart. Thanks. StBlark (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sock-puppet is derogatory. It does refer to a user who presents himself or herself in more than one identity, but, with a few exceptions, using an alternate identity is condemned. The usual reasons for the use of sock-puppets are either to give the false appearance of consensus, or to evade a block, or for trolling. It is not considered deceptive for IP addresses to change; that is just how they work. When you make a statement at DRN, moderated discussion can start. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Thank you. Also last night I contributed a statement at DRN. StBlark (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sock-puppet is derogatory. It does refer to a user who presents himself or herself in more than one identity, but, with a few exceptions, using an alternate identity is condemned. The usual reasons for the use of sock-puppets are either to give the false appearance of consensus, or to evade a block, or for trolling. It is not considered deceptive for IP addresses to change; that is just how they work. When you make a statement at DRN, moderated discussion can start. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)