New comments go on the bottom of talk pages. See WP:TALK. I moved your new thread and replied at Talk:Robert M. Pirsig#Background.... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke...Chafe66 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chafe66! I apologize for being so critical on simultaneity. My comments are directed at DVdm, in the hope that he'll becomes less possessive of that page. There is much more to the topic than the math of physics. Anything said in English is either philosophy, religion, or something else, but it isn't the math of physics. BlueMist (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMist--no harm no foul. I figure if I can't answer properly motivated criticism, I oughtn't get on a wiki page and sound off. Wasn't clear to me you were criticizing my points; my impression was just (as I've just written) that we're talking about different things. RE: Dvdm, he actually seemed receptive to my point right off the bat, which was critical of the example in the article, so I haven't encountered yet that phenomenon. Perhaps I should read the history of the page some more...Chafe66 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cow tipping. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing the reverting in equal measure. You don't have any special editing rights over anyone else. Have you applied the above message to yourself? You are also reverting the minute I make a change. Thank You. Chafe66 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I already started a discussion this morning at Talk:Cow_tipping#Impossibility_edits, addressing the content being reverted - if you can explain why you think the "thus do not constitute proofs" caveat is important, please join in there.

ok, I'll go to that talk segment when I get a chance.

I cut the caveat once in good faith along with the unclear "impossible" quote I assumed it was a response to, and again the next day when you ignored Montanabw's edit summary "This is a GA-class article, let's discuss extensive changes at talk, please.". You've now added it four times in 24 hours, which is against the three-revert rule I tried to tell you about - you might want to follow WP:3RR's advice that "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." --McGeddon (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not really trying to contextualize that particular "impossible" comment by one of the scientists. I'll explain in talk.

Thanks. Please do consider reverting your last edit to the article, and waiting for the discussion to decide how best to write that section. Per WP:3RR you could be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia if you choose to leave your fourth revert in place. --McGeddon (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it wikipedia makes a distinction between "editor" and "author" of a page? Chafe66 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we're all editors and nobody owns any article. The only important distinction here is between an editor who's reverted the same thing four times in 24 hours, and the other editors who haven't. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. But then why aren't the reversions to the original considered "reversions"? So article is in state X when I make my first change to Y. Then someone reverts it to state X again. I then change it back to state Y. Why are the reversions back to state X not also liable to the exact same charge as what you're directing at me?Chafe66 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because several authors are reverting my edits back to state X and I'm the only one reverting to state Y. Which is unfair really. People can then just gang up. Chafe66 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is mostly there just to strongly discourage rapid back-and-forth reverting, and to move the disagreement to the talk page where it can be worked through more productively. If a few editors "gang up" reverting but you can make a good point on the talk page, the good point will ultimately win out. --McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were ignoring "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." for several hours there, and then left it overnight, I decided to delete the line rather than report you at WP:AN3RR. Please don't add it back until the talk page discussion is over. --McGeddon (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

since you or someone else has reverted every edit I've made to the page, why don't you face this same, silly charge? Also, you make it seem as if you've done me a favor by merely deleting my edit one last time. Thanks I guess—back to square one for me. Finally, you ask me not to make the edit again until it's resolved on the Cow-tipping talk page, and yet do not answer my responses on that page. You apparently had time to go back and delete my edit yet again and write me a message on this page (clearly you prioritized getting my versions off the page over discussion), but no time to respond to the discussion you're asking for. Congratulations: You've gained complete control over the page (which I'm sure is an abuse of the spirit of 3RR), since any further editing by me is liable to the dreaded 3RR, and there is no appeal. I presume if we can't agree on the talk page, you'll somehow manage to make sure my edits never do make it in. Wikipedia, a paragon of a democratic process. Chafe66 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I arguably did you a favour by undoing your fourth revert instead of reporting you at WP:AN3RR (or leaving you open to being reported by any other editor). And yes, that's right, I had five seconds to click "revert" on your edit and write two sentences here, but didn't have time to read and consider and reply to a lengthy talk page thread. --McGeddon (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do see, though, don't you, that you've assumed complete control of the page, and that it's actually, according to your quotation of the 3RR, the reverters of my edit who are violating the rule? I tried to add a couple of mere one-sentence contextual nuances to a much longer article, which have been quashed and repeatedly undone with no argument offered. Sounds suspiciously like assumed ownership of the page. Chafe66 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see that at all - if thought I had "complete control of the page" I'd immediately add back the Modern Farmer quote which I put in and Montanabw took out, and I'd revert the ambiguous "people dispute whether it's an urban legend or a tall tale" line. I've been discussing it on the talk page instead, where I explained my objection back on the 10th. (And I've posted a reply to your most recent point now.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to purposely misquote my edits with something silly I can see there's pretty much no hope of working something out here.

What are you referring to? I was paraphrasing "Whether cow tipping is an urban legend, or are a set of tall tales is disputed." from memory, if that's what you meant - no misrepresentation intended. I'll change my article talk page quotation if that seems a problem. --McGeddon (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really did think your paraphrase was significantly different in meaning from my wording.Chafe66 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fuck, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Fuck, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking my revert kindly and even thanking me for it. ◄ Sebastian 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the change you made on Rickrolling and peaking at your latest, saw a similar change at Judy Garland, so I want to point out that WP has defaulted to logical quotations - punctuation goes outside of any quote marks unless that punctuation was originally part of the quoted text. --Masem (t) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]