User talk:Stayfree76

This is Stayfree76's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

It is approximately 7:17 AM in this user's locale. (Purge to update.)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

following suit with ANI and closing discussion (no action was taken). StayFree76 ^talk 18:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 2020

Your recent editing history at Cherokee Nation (1794–1907) 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 blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: you are being destructive. i have cited my addition. this has been a non actively editing article for some time. i have been improving this article for months now, and then you come in and revert something that is properly cited? i will start a discussion at ANI regarding you if needed. explain yourself? StayFree76 ^talk 18:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Killing of George Floyd 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 blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

restoring a section from an ongoing current event talk page from a bot auto archive is hardly edit warring... either way, a discussion is at the talk page in question and does not need to be addressed here. StayFree76 ^talk 19:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggesting changes

I saw the images you posted at

WP:REDACT, where additions are underlined and removals are ~~struck~~. However, if you must discuss major amounts of text at once, perhaps a sandbox, which somone had suggested, is best. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bagumba: yea, seems like a good idea, but i just matched effort. i proposed the changes, people didnt really respond other than bark at whether it should be changed or not so i just did the pictures to make them happy. it is a diff just like wiki editor so i thought it would do the job considering. ngl, i also did it the way i did to see who would respond and provide input. from what i can tell, that amount of rework is too much for most people to deal with. because of that i will just go ahead with applying changes based on the original discussion in small pieces so it will be more manageable for people. StayFree76 ^talk 16:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small incremental changes is the way to go for a highly-visible page. Edit descriptions are more likely to be sufficient, saving long talk posts. From an editor's perspective, it's easier to deal with a revert here and there than having to deal with potential frustration of someone reverting a mass change. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: yea, i agree, i thought i would make an effort to go for a bulk change just in case it worked out. ill just make sure i detail the descriptions of what i do so people know its related to a discussion. StayFree76 ^talk 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]