User talk:KoA
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Tuhin Sinha
[edit]I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Wikipedia policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. KoA (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Revert by mistake
[edit]You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: WP:1RR violation, while it was my first revert at all.Mentioned reversion Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to WP:LEADBOMB as Bon Courage mentioned or WP:BLUDGEON the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. KoA (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you call 'revert'.
- I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added without all parts mentioned as problematic. Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs
- The second edit was reverted without reason, so I WP:Obvert. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today[1] clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.[2]. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today[3] is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today[1] clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.[2]. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today[3] is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)