Integrity4488hope

Integrity4488hope, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Integrity4488hope! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Open Episcopal Church has been reverted.
Your edit here to Open Episcopal Church was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://bishopjonathanblake.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/press-release-concerning-met-police.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You should revisit your request for arbitration. It's a complete mess. More important, it's a waste of the Committee's and the community's time. It is not a fit subject for arbitration. Even if you straighten it out, it will be declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that computer savy and it seemed very complicated. How do I withdraw it, if it is not applicable? Integrity4488hope (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It is complicated, isn't it? Add a pargraph to your statement that you wish to withdraw the request. Then I suggest you look at WP:DR to resolve the dispute with the other editor. Finally, don't call the other user's edits "vandalism". It's not a word that should be bandied about so easily, and your being a newbie will only be accorded so much latitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice. It is really helpful. Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - one further thing - how do I access the arbitration request page to withdraw it?Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've asked the clerks to take care of it. Thanks Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help in doing this Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Required discussion for moderated content dispute resolution

I'm posting this to both your and Gorilla1978's talk pages. You're being advised at several different places to use content dispute resolution, but you should know that the moderated content dispute resolution venues — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation — all require extensive talk page discussion before they will accept a request for dispute resolution and will not take edit summaries into account in determining whether sufficient discussion has occurred. (And they will also ignore any discussion which is about conduct rather than content in making that determination. If the discussion is about an editor's motives, intentions, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, or anything else about the editor then that discussion is about conduct, not content.) Requests filed in those venues without adequate talk page discussion are uniformly rejected. So, if you wish to pursue this further the first thing to do is to try to talk it out on the Open Episcopal Church talk page. If a party will not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in the area of dispute, consider the advice given at DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Thank you for this helpful and comprehensive advice. Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787495489#Malicious Editing Closed

Hi Integrity4488hope, In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Grateful for your helpful information. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain so carefully. Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)