Hello, I didn’t change anything per ce, I set the page back to its original state. From what I have seen most other Wikipedia editors do is, when they set things back to their original state, they don’t add extra citations unless they themselves added their own information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8501:D390:D4D3:EC7:119:AC39 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello! Totally understandable where you are coming from, that is why I marked it as a good faith edit. I understand you are trying to contribute and help which is greatly appreciated. The main reason I asked for a source was because a claim that information shouldn't be deleted puts the burden of proof on the editor that restores the content. If you decide to revert the page again that is fine and I won't undo it, but just be aware other editors might revert based on similar reasoning. The best way to squash any doubts on a claim is by adding a credible source.
- All that being said I really appreciate you opening a dialogue here with me, and I thank you for attempting to make Wikipedia a better place. You should make an account at some point, as Wikipedia could always use more constructive editors such as yourself!
I removed the link to that pseudoscience article from an obscure magazine. Why was that even there ? Cabinet magazine ? A single obscure magazine on the internet is a valid source now on wiki ?
- Hey, no worries:) that is fine to remove a source you view as unreliable. This is why edit summaries are so important though, editors do not always have the time to read through every source someone blanks on Wikipedia with no edit summary. I reverted based on that fact and it appeared to be a test edit, but I do make mistakes occasionally. Next time add an edit summary "Removed citation to unreliable pseudoscience source" and I would not have mistakenly reverted it then. Feel free to revert my edit, just please add a summary so other editors understand your reasoning. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 20:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Get a life!!!!Edit
The things WRITTEN on Drews page are actually FACTS. Sad you're such a brown noser.
- Without sources to back up your claims, content of a defamatory nature cannot be added to a WP:BLP. Also you must write it in a manual of style appropriate for an encyclopedia. Now why you have a problem with me, I do not know. I am just an editor trying to keep this encyclopedia accurate and neutral. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 02:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
- I thought the exception to WP:3RR was obvious vandalism including page blanking. That is exactly what this user was doing and I attempted to open a dialogue, but this user didn't respond to any of my attempts. Why am I being warned? This was not an edit war, this was reverting clear page blanking. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 23:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- At the time it looked to be and edit war. Of course the IP ended up blocked as a proxy. I've struck out the warning. Sorry about that. I also unprotected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah well I appreciate the quick strike out and no worries! I am sure you have more than enough on your plate being an administrator. I'm just glad I wasn't breaking any rules by reverting the blanking. Thanks for the response and hope you have a good week. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 23:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
Greetings. This is a heads up that two of the colors in your signature (as of this edit) have contrast-against-white ratios below the minimum 4.5:1 recommended in the footnote at WP:SIGAPP (a Wikipedia policy). The ratio for FF4500 is 3.44:1 , and the ratio for 40E0D0 is 1.641:1.
Contrast is important for accessibility, which Wikipedia takes somewhat seriously. Can you change your signature to use compliant colors? If you are willing to limit your choices to named CSS colors, MOS:ONWHITE makes that easy; otherwise you have to do some experimenting with the contrast checker. Let me know if I can help.