User talk:Red Rock Canyon
Wiki Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- @Drsmoo: okay. Thanks. I think it's a good idea to get some more views on this issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
California Proposition 6 (2018)
Just would like to thank you for cleaning up the paragraphs and also allowing the edits that another user had made to remain. The Wikipedia User Yilloslime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yilloslime) removed all the opinions in the article and leaving to facts only. Wikipedia should not be used to affect decisions on an upcoming election, but should provide just facts for research.
Thanks again, hopefully the page stays this way, a great layout.
--CRTGAMER (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER
Uh oh...
I think maybe I edit conflicted you at Fascism. Sorry about that... Atsme ð£ ð§ 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Lee J. Carter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
Truth is, Jesse's been edit-warring over this for days, and now you're piling on to help him. No wonder nobody edits Wikipedia anymore. It's toxic. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Are you the original publisher??. Also, The edits I made to him are correct and rightfully so. if you'd like to discuss further, don't hesitate to message me. Jodyjoe27 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Re: Disagreements
Thanks for reaching out to me outside of the talk page, so we can discuss this in isolation. You need to understand that I've been active on Wikipedia since 2006, and have been around when a lot of policies were initially being created. I don't have trouble understanding the policies, I just simply disagree with your interpretation and application of those policies. Moreover, you seem to be quite selective in terms of which policies are applicable: for instance, it is generally understood that a revert is a last resort when working on an article, as it is disruptive (see
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changesand
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle). Therefore, once again I encourage you to stop reverting changes so liberally, because you are not helping.
When it comes to
reporters either leave out significant facts that would contradict the point they're trying to make, or they contain false statementsis a very strong accusation, and the burden of truth is on your side. While I am trying to assume good faith, it does sound very much like you are biased against the magazine. Jacobin is a very respected magazine, and I do not recall any wider discussion here, or elsewhere in the media about how unreliable they are. Therefore, if you want to present a case against Jacobin, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that they are not reliable.
I hope that you will finally stop reverting my changes whenever you don't like them, and instead discuss applicable policies on the talk page, before performing disruptive actions. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 25 August 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. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Just out of curiousity...
which Red Rock Canyon? I regularly drive through two of them. --jpgordonð¢ð ðð 00:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Red Rock Canyon State Park (California). It's a place I've been through many times, but never actually visited. The visible strata are quite eye-catching, even when just driving by. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's the closest one to me; we go through that one and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (though usually not both on the same trip.) --jpgordonð¢ð ðð 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Annoying pings
A new option was recently added to the wiki. If you visit the userpage or talk page of your annoying pinger, there's an option in the menu at the left of the page "Mute this user" which can block emails and/or notifications. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
For future reference
- Okay, thank you. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
No need to apologize
At
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review