User talk:GreenFrogsGoRibbit/Archives/ 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Standard DS alerts
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beth Brinkmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JD.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josh Hawley. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Disambiguation link notification for February 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lubbie Harper Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSW.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Hello, I'm Heavy Water. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Indictment of Donald Trump, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Heavy Water (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Heavy Water. Your edit has been undone. I created a general statement without a citation along with the "Reactions" section, in order to give faster editors the ability to add a citation to either my general statement or create their own additional statements under reaction themselves. Creating a reaction page was super necessary to the page. As you know, at this moment the Democratic reaction part Indictment of Donald Trump lacks a citation. The solution is not to immediately take it down without giving the editor a chance to even amend it. As WP:NEEDCITE tells us, we should allow the editor to make one or allow another user to cite itself, only removing the claim if it's truly uncitable. Thank you. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not "take down" anything. I merely rewrote the statement to fit the sources I found. I intended originally not to split the Reactions section into sections, which would have preserved the citation's application to the entire Reactions section. I apologize for that oversight, but I stand by what I said in regards to the original sentence. Heavy Water (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water I accept your initial apology, but for the remainder of your comment, my view is let's just focus on making the page as great as it can be which I think is both of our main goals when we edit it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not "take down" anything. I merely rewrote the statement to fit the sources I found. I intended originally not to split the Reactions section into sections, which would have preserved the citation's application to the entire Reactions section. I apologize for that oversight, but I stand by what I said in regards to the original sentence. Heavy Water (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion closed
The discussion at Talk:Deep Learning (South Park) has been closed. casualdejekyll 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Flag
Hey! I just wanted to flag that I went WP:BOLD and tried to find a compromise {{main article}} use per your edit summary at Donald Trump. [1] I realize that page is on a 1R restriction, but if you disagree with that just let me know and I'll self revert.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Jerome Frank Disciple! I find your edit perfectly acceptable! No need to self-revert. Thanks!! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)