User talk:Abotnick

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Abotnick! Thanks for the contributions over on the Chiropractic article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Abotnick, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hello, I reverted your changes to the intro on the Chiropractic article. I assume that you wanted to rewrite the paragraph but the old one was still there so the article ended up having 2 full introductions. --McSly (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

McSly, the introduction is a work in progress so you should not be reverting it like this. Do not make changes unless you discuss in on the chiropractic talk page section first.Abotnick (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if my actions were misconstrued as trying to undo your work. I just thought that you started some edits and then for some reasons hadn't had the time to finish them. Keep in mind though that the articles are online at all time so they should stay clean and having 2 intros repeating the same definition twice may be confusing for the reader.--McSly (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The intro is a difficult section to write because of the absence of neutrality in the contributing parties and the source material. I'm working on sorting it out. My intention was to construct the new intro piece by piece and try to get approval to prevent vandals from starting a revert war and making the time I put into it for nothing. I see your point about it being confusing though. I'll spend more time expanding it and put it up in one piece.Abotnick (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You might find it easier to do it in your own userspace and then copy it over. Perhaps at User:Abotnick/Chiropractic. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS

Blogs are not reliable sources, as per above, as they are self published sources. As such, I've removed the material you added to Georgia Guidestones. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The blogs have original sources and there were other sources referenced. You are out of line. Revert it back and cite the original sources. Abotnick (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The blogs are self published sources and do not meet criteria for inclusion. The other source is the book written by someone who claims to be the person who created the Guidestones, which is unverified, but is already mentioned in the section of the article about the creation. Your changes do not meet criteria as currently sourced. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I found the original source. Stop reverting the changes. Abotnick (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Your recent editing history at Georgia Guidestones 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I provided the exact quote text. Please read the discussion. Abotnick (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with, nor does it provide a justification for, your edit-warring. - Aoidh (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Aoidh (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)