User talk:Pjconnolly123
January 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm Azkord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Virtue signalling without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi, i found out that you have started discussion on the talk page that's very good thing but before removing let other user confirm it first. AD Talk 15:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Pjconnolly123, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Pjconnolly123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
January 2019[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Virtue signalling. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived[edit]
|
|
Hi Pjconnolly123! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Edit warring[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Virtue signalling ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
No consensus has been established to radically change the lead section. You've began talk page discussions and have been opposed on your views by several editors. Leave the long-standing, consensus version in place until you can establish consensus for a change per WP:BRD process. --Netoholic @ 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, I appreciate that Netoholic took into consideration one of my concerns in the edit they carried out after posting this warning.
In my defence, (using the wording of the above warning):
"Users are expected to collaborate with others" and "use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors" - I have attempted this here, here and here.
On; "to try to reach a consensus" - see previous and, for example; here; "I am trying to be constructive and making minor amendments, and giving detailed reasons....And although I do think there are other elements from the other wholesale version that keeps getting reverted to that could be in the intro, your version seems to be workable with some changes."
As for "You've began talk page discussions and have been opposed on your views by several editors." - Not a single editor has opposed my views in talk. Excluding Netoholic three have carried out reverts. The first here citing "removal of sourced material" and again here citing "restore sourced material". My point was precisely that the sourced material did not a) justify inclusion in the intro b) justify an attribution to 'signalling theory' and c) was verifiably factually incorrect. So a revert on the basis of "removal of sourced material" is not adequate. After highlighting this, neither editor responded. Since then 13 different editors have worked on the entry with only two reverting to the long standing version. Netoholic has overidden the work of 11 editors with 7 reverts, the most recent of these being the first attempt at constructive editing and has taken into consideration part of my criticism of the page (to which I'm grateful for). There was also another revert by 96.42.45.128.
I have remained civil, calm and polite, I have explained my actions at each move and having provided my own justification have asked for justifications from the minority of editors who have reverted work I've contributed to. On attempting to resovle the dispute with Netoholic I was told "tldr", was dismissed as an "SPA", accused of writing "diatribes", and been told that my behaviour is "insulting" and "Battleground" with no examples of such provided. I have offered apologies and attempted conciliation and received no substantive response (response: "tldr"). I have also sympathised with some of Netoholic's concerns about NPOV with another version of the intro. Now I may have written long pieces on talk (I'll try to cut this down in future), but I have summarised the points in edit summary.
Finally, WP:ETIQ : "Be polite." "Civilly work towards agreement." "Do not ignore reasonable questions." "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." "Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste." It saddens me that these very basic tenets of etiquette haven't been afforded to me at any point by Netoholic. --Pjconnolly123 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)