User talk:Rua/Archives/2017/December
 | This page 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 2017 election voter message
Hello, Rua. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit war notice
Hello, I read the edit war notice you've placed on my talk page. I'm sorry for the many article-moves, as it seems to have misaligned the talk pages but would like to stress my efforts in discussing the matter cordially. Talk:Netherlandic languages, Talk:Low Franconian languages and Talk:Old Dutch are clear evidence to my commitment in resolving the issues surrounding these pages in a civil and constructive way. I have asked Kleuske why she approaches me the way she does, but have yet to receive a reply. May I also ask why you've placed the edit war notice on my talk page, but not on that of Kleuske? Is she not also involved in this 'edit war'? I ask because I don't want other Wikipedia users to think that I'm being the unreasonable or disruptive party in this discussion. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- The reason I placed it on your talk page is that you are not discussing and coming to a consensus before making your edits. They were reverted, which means that they are contested and should not be redone until the dispute has been solved. Yes, you did start discussions on your talk page, but then you reinstated your edits regardless, without waiting if it's ok. You need to try to establish a consensus first. Rua (mew) 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:AKAKIOS again reverted after a) several (ignored) requests for sources b) various explanations (including sources) that "netherlandic" simply refers to Dutch and a suggestion I should take a hike, since it's snowing here. The latest is berating me about my "style of communication". I'm fed up and at 3RR, so I won't revert again, but I *do* still disagree (strongly). How do we proceed here? It's not the first time this user seems problematic and has peculiar ideas on surcing ([1]). Kleuske (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if they do not self-revert and engage in consensus building first, then I'll have to revert and report them for 3RR. Rua (mew) 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Kleuske, I've reported your latest remark to the administrators here. It's really beyond acceptable, especially because it was in responds to me trying to extend a hand to you. I hope they will be able to get through to you, as I've clearly failed. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2017
- Well, if they do not self-revert and engage in consensus building first, then I'll have to revert and report them for 3RR. Rua (mew) 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:AKAKIOS again reverted after a) several (ignored) requests for sources b) various explanations (including sources) that "netherlandic" simply refers to Dutch and a suggestion I should take a hike, since it's snowing here. The latest is berating me about my "style of communication". I'm fed up and at 3RR, so I won't revert again, but I *do* still disagree (strongly). How do we proceed here? It's not the first time this user seems problematic and has peculiar ideas on surcing ([1]). Kleuske (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)