User talk:Paul.wehland

Welcome!

Hello, Paul.wehland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Qaei ☎ 20:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your edit summary [1]

You are free to remove those warnings, but your comment that user:MrOllie and I were being unreasonable is not correct. You did attack MrOllie and user:Beetstra by incorrectly calling them vandals, you did add an entry with no Wikipedia article, and you were edit warring. even if you had not broken WP:3RR. Time series database is now protected, presumably because of your actions.

As I said, I see that there is a draft you have contributed to. If and when it is accepted and moved to article space then you may add it to the list. You have submitted the draft Draft:TimescaleDB, but as it stands it is almost certain to be declined. It contains zero independent sources, and does not even make a claim of notability, let alone show that it is notable. You need to provide reliable independent sources showing the software's notability. See WP:RS and WP:N Meters (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's participated in this dispute in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent editing history 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. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your inclusion of the blog link at History of Microsoft SQL Server is disputed and requires consensus to be included. As you have not been able to come to a consensus at Talk:History of Microsoft SQL Server, the next step is to bring in additional input, either through a third opinion or a Request for Comment. Antagonistic battleground edits such as this do nothing to help your cause. You may indeed achieve consensus to include the link, but you'll find fewer people are willing to listen when your posts are wrapped up in so much bluster.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand this. The EL in question has stood there for 4 years with no dispute. It survived Bots, Editors, Hardcore Admins, and others who like to rampage just like MrOllie. Now someone can just rip it out with no consensus? Why does he/she/X not need Consensus on the article talk page FIRST before rampaging through this article?

Additionally I see that MrOllie has made no references to any Edit Warring. I made one revert. ONE! The other edits were in an attempt to comply with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM something that MrOllie has not intention of following. He is not interested in fixing anything, just rampaging through Wikipedia, deleting anything he disagrees with. Just check his contributions. All he does is delete. He adds NOTHING to Wikipedia! Paul.wehland (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't make your argument without resorting to personal attacks and aspersions, your arguments will be disregarded altogether. While content creation is an integral part of Wikipedia, removing content that does not meet our policies and guidelines is extremely important as well. I've provided you with two possible ways forward in order to settle this particular dispute, please avail yourself of one of them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite such personal attacks? Paul.wehland (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there is already a WP:3O request pending. - MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Include the Reference. Paul.wehland (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These type of WP:POINTY edits will lead to a block. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has no merit. I do not understand why you threaten me with a block? To what are you referring? Paul.wehland (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]