RRskaReb

RRskaReb, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RRskaReb! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello, I'm BusterD. I noticed that you recently removed content from Joseph E. Johnston without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Joseph E. Johnston does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I apologize for my hasty reversion. If you were to use edit summaries while making significant changes, it would make it easier for vandalism watchers like myself to follow your intent. Please continue to edit boldly. BusterD (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry about that. I explained my rationale in the talk section, but forgot to fill in the edit summary. Should be OK now.RRskaReb talk 08:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. The article seemed to be a bit lengthy, and much of that information would have been more appropriate in related Wikipedia articles concerning a couple of the campaigns. Going by memory, the circumstances, time and place of his surrender were covered elsewhere in the article so seemed to be redundant where it was. Also, I'm pretty sure I made no changes to any of the graphics, if I was reading the edits correctly...? It would appear that the article has been extensively re-written over the last three years, so looks pretty good now in my estimation. Though I do think specific information about what happened at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain should be left to that page rather than the bio here. Thank you. RRskaReb talk 06:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please change your sig

Hi. Please change the background color of your signature. it is very close to the color used to identify administrators using a script many editors utilize. It makes you appear to be an administrator. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Then they should allow it only for administrators. I saw no advisories concerning this when I set up my new signature. Also, "very close" vs. same is not the same.RRskaReb talk 20:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Very colleagial of you. I guess it doesn;t matter - I know now that you're not an admin, and I've got something of a measure for what you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"and I've got something of a measure for what you are." Would you care to expound upon that statement?RRskaReb talk 08:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make any edits on the Oath Keepers entry. Wouldn't bother trying to, either. Strange that discussion on a talk page with another user can trigger a response from Big Wikipedia Brother. LOLRRskaReb talk 15:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply on all pages, including article talk pages - and I'm pretty sure that posting to an article talk page is taking an interest in the article. As someone who helped write them it isn't surprising that I pass them out. They're a bit like gobstoppers, harmless if you're careful but you can choke on them if you're not. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm...OK. I did read the information you provided. I just feel like I'm being flagged somehow for disagreeing with the POV of the article...that is, there shouldn't be any POV one way or the other. Thank you for your response.RRskaReb talk 19:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)