User talk:ChubsterII
Stay civil, please
[edit]Please be civil on the Bigfoot talkpage, Chubster. Don't imply people are conspiring ("you’ve managed to organize a successfull takeover of this article"). Don't accuse people of lying, name calling, or WP:NPOV violations without examples (diffs or quotations), because accusations without evidence are personal attacks. I understand it's frustrating that (almost) nobody agrees with you, but keep in mind one of the central tenets for editing Wikipedia talkpages: Comment on content, not on the editor. Don't berate other editors and don't edit war, or you could eventually find yourself blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
- All well and good and I guess Orangemarlin was just being frank but Dreamguy was harassing. He gave me a 3RR warning when I only made 2 edits and called me a “ridiculous pro-Bigfoot editor” like I have a disease. Just before all that Jess had to warn him for “Biting” another editor.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree DreamGuy didn't use the best template for the warning, especially not his header on your page: there was too much emphasis on the technical 3RR rule, when the point was really edit warring, not the bright-line rule about not reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. But I was actually at the time thinking of warning you not to edit war myself, as you seemed well on the way to it. If you look at the History tab, you'll see that nobody else is reverting the same edit twice, the way you do here and here. To never revert the same edit more than once is a good principle, which makes you respected and which many editors hold by. If you check the Wikipedia:3RR policy, you'll see that it's actually called Wikipedia:Edit warring. The 3 reverts/24 hours rule is not an entitlement to revert a particular number of times. I also agree DreamGuy bit Timpicerilo (who is generally himself very civil) rather nastily — but then Jess told him off, which is sufficient as far as I'm concerned. I might have done so too, if I'd been around for it, but it's by now an old comment, and you won't find any admin prepared to complain or warn an editor about something that was said ten days ago. Ridiculous like you have a disease ? Surely not? Anyway, no, I'm afraid I can't agree with you when you say you weren't nearly as rude as they’ve been. But I'll tell you what: if DreamGuy bites you, please drop a line on my talkpage straight away (these complaints must be reasonably fresh) and I'll do something about it if I'm around. (I usually look in for a while every day, though I can't give any guarantees; we're all volunteers.) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen.--ChubsterII (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, ChubsterII. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)