User talk:Randomocity999

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers — A good starting point.
Quick Introductions to:

Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.

Where next?[edit]

If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

NPA[edit]

I just saw this. I think the other editor could have handled some things (a lot) better in their interaction with you, but your comment was really unacceptable. Tone and content are totally uncalled for, and placing it in a thread that's almost a year old shows that you were searching for something to pile onto. If you got a problem with another editor, please handle it in a more mature manner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct- I shouldn't have tacked on that comment to a tread that did not involve me. However, this guy (Machine Elf 1735) appears to be evincing a pattern of tendentiousness, or apparent tendentiousness, throughout a significant part of his edits; going through the history on his talk page demonstrates support for this assertion. I won't post any other personally directed comments. Thanks. Randomocity999 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Begging the question[edit]

You and your opponent are at the same place as far as edit-warring is concerned: both of you have reverted each other four times. Both of you are hereby warned for edit warring (edit warring is edit warring even if you're right). Any further reverts will be followed by a block. I will give you both the opportunity to handle it on the article talk page, like adults, because I have protected the article for a week. Moreover, both of you should stay away from each others' talk pages for the next seven days: the only edits I will allow you to make on the other's page is a notification of some thread on a noticeboard, such as ANEW, Dispute resolution, or ANI. Good luck to both of you. The moment you reach an impasse, or really just before it, seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor couldn't leave well-enough alone; I didn't even revert his old edit- I added explanatory information that was cited. It is obvious to anyone that "A therefore A" does not mean that "A" is proven, whether or not is logically valid. Anyways, sorry you've had to play impromptu arbitrator. The other user disregarded the debate on the talk page and just went ahead and reverted my edit, making the bogus claim that my edit was in violation of the no original research and tendentiousness policies. Randomocity999 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5RR Warning on Hippie[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hippie. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a talk page section for the dispute. Randomocity999 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please do not edit war at List of Jewish chess players, edit against consensus, delete refs, and delete ref-supported text. Many thanks. From your above warnings, I see you've been warned at edit warring on other articles this week alone. Please don't. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of Jewish chess players[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at List of Jewish chess players. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]