Jump to content

User talk:Klocek: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Klocek (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Klocek (talk | contribs)
Line 23: Line 23:


I suggest you follow BRD and discuss your controversial edits on the talk page. Only after you get consensus will they be accepted. Trying to force your changes into the article, even if you're right, will not work. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you follow BRD and discuss your controversial edits on the talk page. Only after you get consensus will they be accepted. Trying to force your changes into the article, even if you're right, will not work. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:Wow, you've never made an edit on the acupuncture page, but all of a sudden, out of nowhere, you come along and do so, along with several others who've never cared to edit there before. All within seconds. What a coincidence, I mustn't go outside today for I'm likely to be stuck by lightening. [[User:Klocek|Klocek]] ([[User talk:Klocek#top|talk]]) 17:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:21, 25 May 2014

Welcome everyone! Feel free to post here and ask me any questions that you might have. I hope I can be of some assistance.

Discretionary sanctions notice: Pseudoscience

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but it doesn't appear that their decision impacts any edits I will be making. Thanks! Klocek (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are controversial and definitely do cross the line of what's covered by the "discretionary sanctions" mentioned above. I suggest you be VERY careful or you'll get blocked, regardless of whether you're right or not. We edit collaboratively here, and that means we don't always get our personal edits accepted. It's no fun, but that's the way it works here. For your information, I'm going to add a template below with some links and instructions. I suggest you read it very carefully. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: the cabal of sceptics has noticed that you pose a threat to their monopoly on Wikipedia viewpoints and, being the thugs we are, we will do everything we can to force you into submission, including coordinated tag team reverts of your edits and trying to scare you into not making posts at all by unjustifiably threatening you with blocks or bans if you do. Klocek (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture 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.

I suggest you follow BRD and discuss your controversial edits on the talk page. Only after you get consensus will they be accepted. Trying to force your changes into the article, even if you're right, will not work. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've never made an edit on the acupuncture page, but all of a sudden, out of nowhere, you come along and do so, along with several others who've never cared to edit there before. All within seconds. What a coincidence, I mustn't go outside today for I'm likely to be stuck by lightening. Klocek (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]