Udippuy

Hi, somewhere there's a wiki guideline about NOT moving people's comments w/o permission. There are some good faith exceptions, but none applied in this case.

There's also a bit of a conflict between schools of thought, (A) is it better to embed new comments in a longggggg thread at different points midstream, where they are closer to the remark being replied to, or (B) is it better to be chronological? Well, your mileage may vary. My philosophy is that while my mind is being made up I often like interspersing them. When my mind is made up, I like to put them at the end. My reasoning is that anyone intersted in some sub-thought process is following the midstream sub-conversation. However, after my mind is made up I like to tell EVERYONE what my position has become, and virtually EVERYONE reads the last things added at the tail end of the thread. That's why I refused permission to move that comment.... I want as many people as possible to see that I have come around - partway - to your perspectivce on the existing text and citations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry NewsAndEventsGuy, I know that manipulating other people's comments has been seriously criticized in the past but I thought (being new to WP and used to newsgroups threading) that yours was an obvious mistake. I understand now that it wasn't and I sincerely apologize for the reformatting. As for my good faith, I think that it can be deduced by the fact that I clearly reported the move in the revision summary. Udippuy (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

no worries, I really hacked up someone else's comments when I first joined and oooh boy. touchy bunch. You can see my proposed edit by looking at the article itself, and then clicking version history. I did it that way so people could follow the citations, which, if referenced by nickname, don't easily copy and paste onto the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alessandro Strumia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leptogenesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alessandro Strumia. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 11:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)