User talk:Chilton

Welcome!

Hello, Chilton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Manul ~ talk 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Manul ~ talk 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Manul ~ talk 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at B. Alan Wallace shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Manul ~ talk 18:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Manul ~ talk 23:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at B. Alan Wallace

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chilton reported by User:Manul (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chilton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

EdJohnston justified the block stating that "there is no assurance from User:Chilton that they will stop warring. Their response above doesn't seem to acknowledge any problem with their edits", which is clearly untrue, because I stated my intention to use the dispute resolution noticeboard instead of continuing the edit war. Unfortunately, I decided that before I do that, I will propose one last version (with a significant change with respect to the previous ones) and see if the other editor will be OK with it. Instead, he decided to report me for a block. Chilton (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you say you are going to stop edit warring but then continue, then of course there is no assurance that you will stop. The block reason is accurate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|reason=Please see my unblock reason above. User:Boing! said Zebedee misunderstood, because I didn't continue edit warring after I had expressed my intention to use the dispute resolution noticeboard. Chilton (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

I didn't perceive User:B. Chilton's comment in the WP:AN3 report to be a promise to stop edit warring. If they had explicitly promised to stop I might have closed the report differently. Making no further reverts after you have already made four is not much of a defence. Their future behavior on the article is still a concern, since their intentions are unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, what you wrote in the justification was untrue, as my comment clearly indicated that I did see a problem with continuing the edit war. My intention is to use the dispute resolution noticeboard if the other editor keeps doing what they did. Chilton (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked if you will agree to wait for a prior talk page consensus before making further edits at B. Alan Wallace. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor consistently ignored some of my questions (eg. on why he keeps removing a fragment of the article I added), even though I repeated them a few times, so I doubt such a consensus is possible. I think the only way out if he reverts (or otherwise expresses dislike for) the current version is to use the dispute resolution noticeboard, and if this is the case, then I agree to not make any changes to the parts of the article being in question until the issue is resolved. Chilton (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would see no problem with you making a frank offer to wait for a prior talk page consensus before reverting. In any case, the block has expired so the question is now moot. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to withdraw your request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard in order to request a third opinion instead? Remember that neither a third opinion nor moderated discussion is binding. (The one way of resolving content disputes that is usually binding is a Request for Comments.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astigmatic (album), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brian Morton and Richard Cook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Progressive rock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barry Andrews and Sara Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chilton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chilton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]