User talk:Newbreeder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Newbreeder, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Brave Dragon 21:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Photocaucus

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

--Belibaste (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why am I being asked this?--Newbreeder (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You intervened in the elections article. It is just a question. If you don't want to respond, do not respond.--Belibaste (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  v/r - TP 03:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, Seriously? I log in after nearly a month away from WP to find I was blocked for 24 hrs. for edit warring. What's truly baffling is that in looking at my edits to the page on which I allegedly edit-warred, it can be seen that: a) I last edited there in November 2012, 14 months before the date of the block (is there no statute of limitations on these things?); b) To date, I've made a total of 9 edits on that page, spread out sporadically over a period of about 18 months. Hardly indicative of edit-warring. I'm confident that any objective observer who looks at the edits would agree they are all of good faith participation in constructive discussions. So, TParis, can you please clue me in as to where my edit-warring took place? Because I'm completely stumped. Perhaps I was mistaken for another editor? Given that the block has long since expired, I guess it's not that big of a deal. Still, it still kinda sucks to have that on your block log when you can't for the life of you figure out what you did to be penalized. An explanation would be greatly appreciated.--Newbreeder (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I made the mistake of putting "Talk:" in the block notice for all of the editors involved but I assumed there was no need to fix it because it was close enough to remind ya'all of the warring on United_States_presidential_election,_2012. But just to be clear, you were blocked for revert-teaming in an edit war against an IP. The reverts for your 'side' are as follows: First revert by Inqvisitor, Second revert by Gilliam, Third revert by Inqvisitor, Fourth revert by Inqvisitor, Fifth revert by Vanamonde93, Sixth revert by you, Seventh revert by Vanamonde93. You got pegged for being the 6th revert. Note, just because you don't personally violate the 3 revert rule doesn't mean that you haven't violated it as a team nor that you have conducted edit warring behavior itself.--v/r - TP 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is appreciated, if not entirely comprehended. I admit I had forgotten about that revert on the main article, but it was made in good faith in trying to curb an IP who was repeatedly adding contentious content without getting a consensus, and it was one revert. For my part, I will say I should added an edit summary clearly stating my intentions, and probably should have advised the IP to take the issue to the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. But I was about to log off and guess I got lazy, figuring the reason for the revert would be self-evident. Clearly a mistake on my part. But still, blocked for one revert without so much as a warning? Even if it did take place in the midst of a multi-user revert war (something which I admittedly failed to consider at the time), dosen't WP:AGF still apply, especially for an editor having no previous history of blocks or reported "incidents" as well as an established history of good-faith constructive editing? Does this not warrant, at the very least, being fairly warned before being blocked? Or is "block first, ask questions later" standard procedure now? How sad if that's the case, especially considering the waning level of quality editing and participation on Wikipedia in the past few years. It's difficult to see how such procedures could possibly help the situation. Anyway, having gotten that off my chest, I will now let go of the matter. In light of the fact that the block is now long expired and (as it so happened) never actually interfered with my editing, it's water under the bridge. I did, however, feel the need to speak my peace for whatever it might be worth and whatever useful purpose it might serve. Thanks for your attention.--Newbreeder (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Our readers are what is important. When articles bounce back and forth the readers suffer. That's why article stability is important which is why edit warring is bad. When we see edit warring, we need to prevent it from disrupting articles. That's why edit wars have no "winner" and no one is ever "right". It sucks that an IP was being disruptive, but in the future, try to be more aware of what others are doing and report instead of revert.--v/r - TP 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Campbell. 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) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plumen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Museum of Modern Art]] (MoMA]) Permanent design collection

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

US presidential election, 2016

As an frequent contributor to the the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)