User talk:Doc9871: Difference between revisions

Archives

User talk:Doc9871/Archive 1 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 2 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 3 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 4 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 5 User talk:Doc9871/Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I don't know if you noticed that the strange edit by Robotic131225189311 to the Donald Trump lead that you reverted, "Trump was inducted into the celebrity wing of the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013 at Madison Square Garden for his contributions to the promotion", was simply a copypaste from the "Professional wrestling" section of the article, minus context and source. And it wasn't just a mistake, because he re-reverted you. WP:CIR does come to mind. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't catch where it was gleaned from, but thanks! Not very competent at all, that one. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks for not accepting the BS that so many editors, even well established users spew on this site. They're the reason Wikipedia is dying and why the project is less respeted as a reliable source of information. People scream about BLP and reliable sources when something doesn't fit their views/agenda but when it comes to people they don't like, such as Donald Trump, it's apparently gloves off and anything goes. Beatitudinem (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Beatitudinem (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this tends to be true (but not about WP "dying" - no comment on that. It's been "dying" since the day I started here, and before...). In general, people are usually very unwilling to waver from their own beliefs. Religion, politics, etc. With a system like Wikipedia there's an opportunity to counter bias through policy and guidelines. Objectivity is the best policy. Cheers ;) Doc talk 07:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doc9871. 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]

I'm gonna go sleep. One more chance to remove all the insults and personal attacks from [1]. I'll let the insults and personal attacks in the edit summaries slide. If not then on the basis of User:Bishonen's topic ban and User:The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments in extending the ban ("there was consensus to issue a warning that any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban.") we'll go to AE when I wake up. I'm really trying to be nice about this. Feel free to remove this message.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "insults". No "personal attacks". I've always maintained you're totally biased against Trump and have no business editing that topic as such. Still do. What you think is a "personal attack" is really just challenging your authority to objectively edit topics in an encyclopedic manner. I will retract nothing, as I have made no "personal attacks" against policy. Fuck off now. Doc talk 09:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]