User talk:BOLO 97: Difference between revisions
m only reverted twice today |
Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User_talk:Volunteer_Marek. (TW) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:Only reverted twice today, please don't lie. A series of edits back to back counts as one. [[User:BOLO 97|BOLO 97]] ([[User talk:BOLO 97#top|talk]]) 03:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
:Only reverted twice today, please don't lie. A series of edits back to back counts as one. [[User:BOLO 97|BOLO 97]] ([[User talk:BOLO 97#top|talk]]) 03:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== August 2018 == |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|stop attacking]] other editors, as you did on [[:User_talk:Volunteer_Marek]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''False accusations of socking are personal attacks. Don't do it.''<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:06, 9 August 2018
Paul Manafort
Hello, BOLO! Thanks for your recent edits at Paul Manafort. I actually agree with you that we should mention, in the lede, the fact that the charges against him do not involve the Russia interference. However, several people have objected to the information by removing it, so it is important that you not add it again. That would be edit warring. Instead, I have started a discussion at Talk:Paul Manafort, to see if we can reach consensus about what to do. The material must not be added to the article again unless and until there is consensus to include it. That's how Wikipedia works. You can make your arguments there at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I just replied on the talk page. Please be fair when considering what is happening in this situation because it does seem like you are holding me to a different standard than other users who are making things up in order to remove RS information they disagree with. I don't see you posting on their talk pages and criticizing their bad actions. I see you are an admin so just though it was important to say this. BOLO 97 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Paul Manafort Primay picture
Hi BOLO 97, I'm concerned about your recent edit removing Paul Manafort's picture on his Wiki page. You say there is no concensus, but there are twice the keep votes for leaving the current photo as is, his recent mugshot. I encourage you to read these two Wikipedia pages to help clarify the rules of this site: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. AlexOvShaolin 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
DS notice
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 recently shown interest in post-1932 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 any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
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.
3RR
Your recent editing history at Paul Manafort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Only reverted twice today, please don't lie. A series of edits back to back counts as one. BOLO 97 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User_talk:Volunteer_Marek. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. False accusations of socking are personal attacks. Don't do it. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)