User talk:ChilledIntentions

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&#32;at, 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: 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)
 * WP:Assume good faith
 * WP:Consensus
 * WP:Verify
 * 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


 * ... 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
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)

Join the Request for Comment
Please note that there is a WP:request for comment at "", 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 ? 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)

March 2023
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)

Still March ...
AukusRuckus (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Now the month of May
AukusRuckus (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023: please comment at the talk page
AukusRuckus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianLawMan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Girth Summit  (blether) 19:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)