User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You/Archives/2019/August

1RR violation

You have violated 1RR on the William Barr article. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I have not. The 1RR states that each user gets one revert in 24 hours. I reverted once, and will not self-revert. Please take up your concerns on the talk page. Thanks! Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cosmic Sans. You've been reported at WP:AN3. Though in my opinion, you didn't break 1RR, you have failed to comply with the other restriction shown on the talk page:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Though you did discuss on talk I don't perceive that your edit is backed by any consensus there. I recommend that you undo your last change to the article in the effort to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I temporarily removed the material in a show of good faith. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I note for posterity that this complaint was closed as "Declined" with the explanation "user has self-reverted, and technically no violation occurred, as they only did one revert. Please continue to discuss this at the talk page, but for now no action is needed here. Snoog is encouraged to assume better faith next time and not escalate here when dialogue is ongoing." [1]

William Barr is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice username

Perhaps it wasn't necessary for me to point out the statistics -- fair enough. Good faith (albeit unsolicited) advice then: Making lots and lots of comments to those whom one disagrees with in a !vote scenario is one of those things that, while not quite against any rules, does reliably rankle people. When they constitute an unusual proportion of a user's overall edits is when we (or, I guess I'll just speak for myself) start to hear faint WP:NOTHERE alarms. Not saying that's the case here. Just adding context in a different forum so it won't seem "baity". :) BTW I really like your username. Is it a reference to something (other than the font)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - I understand that such a thing would rankle people, but that's not what was happening. Let's look at the numbers. I made (what I suppose you could call) "unsolicited replies" to three comments that I disagreed with. There are forty-two top level comments. I don't consider that WP:BLUDGEONING at all, nor do I think it's inappropriate in any way. All my other activity on the page has been to respond to comments that others had directed at me. And yes, there were many of those, because some users wanted to engage in long comment chains with me. But there's nothing wrong with replying to a comment that was directed at you. Anyway, the username is just a reference to the font - but apparently not a very original reference because it's used all over the internet. Probably not as witty as I thought it was when I signed up! Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. FWIW I don't intend to follow up on the bludgeoning thread here or there. It's entirely possible my comment was off the mark; regardless, I just wanted to add some context here. Points for witty username, even if others did it, too. I have the benefit of having an apparently unique username, but it's not snappy. I didn't consider when I created it that it's a confusing mouthful to speak aloud. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Past four years

You asked about a rolling thing the past four years. It's 14 years. The article was created in 2001, had an ib from 2005, which was removed in 2015, which was questioned from then on. See my talk or the article history in August 2015 and talk archive 7. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, that's really quite impressive. I've never seen such a long-running and slow-boiling controversy on Wikipedia before. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Turn away and do something productive ;) - such as adding infoboxes for the hundreds of articles where they are are requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This must be what made Private Pyle go insane in Full Metal Jacket. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)