User talk:ConCelFan

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, ConCelFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Kristanna Loken
Hi. Regarding your message on my talk page, two things: First, please do not ever threaten to edit war. Edit warring is not a legitimate tactic; it's strictly prohibited, and is a blockable offense. The fact that you made a statement that may be construed as an admission of this intent would certainly be used to justify such a block. Second, I indeed explained why the sources were not accepted in my edit summary. Please read it. Nightscream (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I misunderstood the intended meaning of your last message, but I'm not following with respect to your comment about the article's edit history. What point are you attempting to make about the edit history? I see no evidence of edit warring there. Nightscream (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the diffs in question? (I apologize for asking you this, but I just want to make sure I know precisely what you're referring to before I respond.) Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said "diffs", I meant the reversions themselves--that is, the comparison between two version of the article that is shown when you select two of them in the edit history and hit the "Compare selected versions" button. But it's okay, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're pointing to nonetheless.


 * Reverts, in and of themselves, do not necessarily constitute edit warring. Edit warring usually connotes when two editors who have a different, good faith interpretation of policy, continuously revert the article to implement that interpretation, usually within a small time period. However, when Wikipedia policy or guideline are unambiguously clear, and an editor is merely reverting violations of those policies, that is not edit warring. This often happens when an editor spots edits being made by an anonymous IP newbie or one-off editor. Reverting vandalism, for example, even the the vandal continuously restores his disruptive edits, is not edit warring. The WP:EDITWAR policy page is instructive here, in particular the What edit warring is section:


 * Reverting vandalism is not edit warring.
 * Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.


 * Much as I suspected, most of the editors you pointed to are anonymous IP editors who were adding unsourced material on Loken's date of birth. This is a violation of WP:V and WP:BLP, which is why I repeatedly remove that material. These anonymous IP editors are have few edits in their user contributions, which means that most of them are one-off editors (meaning they make an edit or two, and then don't come back), and/or likely do not understand Wikipedia policies and have little interest in sticking around and learning. Only two of the editors you pointed to, Gimmetoo and ChickenWing, are registered users, of those too, even Gimmetoo, who initially just changed the date of birth, eventually got the message and started removing it too, just as I do, because it was unsourced. This is not edit warring. It's the normal (and frustrating) phenomena of presumably well-meaning, miscellaneous people coming to Wikipedia to make a small number of edits of the course of months and years, who don't know the rules, and then leave, requiring more committed editors like me to revert those violations repeatedly. Reverting policy violations is never edit warring. I hope that clears this up. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)