User talk:ChilledIntentions
ChilledIntentions, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi ChilledIntentions! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
Big Six repeated reversions
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Big Six (law firms), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi ChilledIntentions! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Big Six (law firms) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Big Six (law firms), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war.
And just to let you know, there is an open (unresolved) request for comment on the article, and in such cases, it is not really okay to continue adding the disputed material. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC).
On separate but related matters, I'd like to request that you read or revise some WP policy pages:
In particular, this edit summary:
Previous edit inconsistent with the numerous independent and recent citations of this version. The sources cited herein are from leading Australian newspapers and industry sources. The previous edit seems to have removed them for some inexplicable reason, preferring to rely on outdated sources which are not relevant or even accurate in recent time. Watching this page.
- appears to misconstrue sourcing policy (WP:V),
- is unnecessarily confrontational, containing mildly insulting imputations "Watching this page"! (WP:AGF),
- is non-responsive to the concerns raised about your similar previous edits as it addresses none of the concerns raised by others
- even saying, "for some inexplicable reason", despite the concerns raised and reams of discussion on Talk. (Briefly: Your sources are indeed reputable, but they do not say what you contend they do)
- is a near-repetition of your earlier ES which has already been responded to on the talk page—both by me and other editors
Lastly, please note, according to WP processes: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these matters on my talk page or ask for help or advice at the WP:Teahouse. Hope to see you on the talk page. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- ... And only just realised that you'd also said in your edit summary: "The previous edit seems to have removed them for some inexplicable reason, preferring to rely on outdated sources". This is objectively false. No citations—whatsoever—were removed. Why would you suggest this? AukusRuckus (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Removing maintenance templates
@ChilledIntentions: As mentioned in the section above:
Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Big Six (law firms), you may be blocked from editing. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Message added 05:17, 3 March 2023. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Join the Request for Comment
Please note that there is a WP:request for comment at "Talk:Big Six (law firms) § RfC: Is the term "top tier" law firms verifiable and in scope here?", where your input would be appreciated. It was started on 17 February, as mentioned above. There are also several other discussions in earlier sections of that same page, covering the issues in contention, largely unaddressed by you. Can you please join in discussing? I am open to your views; could you please consider mine, which are extensively laid out on the talk page? Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Message added 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
March 2023
Message added 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have discussed all the concerns I have with the sourcing for Big Six at the article's talk page: Talk:Big Six. I've also commented on the cite expansion and maintenance tags I have now included. I am hopeful of hearing from you. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Message added 10:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Still March ...
Message added 13:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AukusRuckus (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Now the month of May
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AukusRuckus (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
June 2023: please comment at the talk page
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AukusRuckus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit (blether) 19:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)