NumberC35
I'm here. This my chat. My chat, this here. Chatter at me- maybe I even chat back, what? Or maybe no. NumberC35 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
May 2014
edit
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Science and Public Policy Institute 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:
- of mercury."<ref name= "NYT">Jennifer Lee, "Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming"], ''New York Times'', May 28, 2003 [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Your addition has been challenged more than once. Stop popping up every now and then and adding it back. Make your case on the essay talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I notice that undoing the text "reversion shouldn't be a first choice in editing" is a demonstration that, in your opinion, reversion without discussion should be a first choice in editing, or at least, it's your first choice in editing.NumberC35 (talk)
- Only when reverting should be the first choice. And in the controversial or otherwise contentious topics I work in, reverting first is often the best choice. The essay already suggests that we consider WP:Revert only when necessary. That is enough. The essay should not be telling editors "reversion should be a last choice in editing"; that's because this is not always true. Again, I suggest you make your case on the essay talk page instead of re-adding a statement that I or others am likely to object to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revert only when necessary is precisely what I was saying. Specifically:
- It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit.
- Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant.
- What part of this are you having problems with? Yes, of course, if it's vandalism, revert. Vandalism is not likely to be amenable to BRR in any case. It's the non vandalism edits to which "Reversion should not be your first choice" applies.NumberC35 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Revert only when necessary is precisely what I was saying. Specifically:
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)