User talk:Largest Cardinal

1RR on Roy Moore
The Roy Moore article is under a 1RR restriction. Please self-revert your latest.  Volunteer Marek  18:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer Marek, I am aware that this article is a 1RR restriction (though I'm might not precisely understand what that means since I'm pretty new to Wikipedia). However, this is content that was accepted for a long time on the allegations page, so I think it is you who have implemented something new by asserting that long-accepted content is untrue and thus must be removed. Moreover, you have not even commented, as of yet, on the discussion thread I started. Thus I don't think I'm obligated to reverse the change I made. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you do not revert yourself, you will find yourself being discussed at a noticeboard, where the appropriate sanction can and surely will be imposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I've self-reverted. I did so because you finally at least posted on the talk page (not because of any threats).  Thank you for doing so. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, from what I understand of Wikipedia's policies, the way to resolve disputes and prevent edit warring is through communication on the talk page. That is what I have attempted, so even if have ended up somehow violating the letter of the policy, I have at least followed its spirit. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have violated the letter of the policy, you will be sanctioned. What is hard about this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I did violate the letter. But obviously the spirit matters even more, and I was making that point to show why I think someone should actually say something about it on the talk page, rather than just giving fairly cryptic, unsupported comments justifying removal.  I'm glad that you did that, and to be clear, I've gone ahead and self-reverted, in line with (as I understand it) the letter and the spirit of the policy. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you've self-reverted -- but in fact you haven't. This is becoming a waste of time...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like it didn't go through. I'm really sorry about that.  My internet connection must have blinked or something after I clicked undo.  It looks like someone else removed it anyway.  We'll see what the consensus is on the talk discussion after a few days or so. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I tried to. It must not have gone through, honestly. I'll try again. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too late -- someone else has already done it. Let's be clear: when you make more than two non-consecutive edits on the same article in a 24-hour period (one subject to 1RR), you should make sure that they are not both "reverts", undoing the work of another editor in any significant respect.  You've now been warned; in the future a warning not not be on offer before a trip to a noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, I think I see what you're saying now. I thought that my final edit was permissible because I was simply undoing someone's else wrongful reversion of my edit (due to the user's failure to comment beforehand on the talk threat--which at the time was, by virtue of no one expressing disagreement with me, in favor of my argument for inclusion).  So I guess I still don't think I violated any policy. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have it your way. What will matter is whether an admin thinks you violated a policy.  Strange that you don't want to take advice on the matter from a long-standing user.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR and WP:REVERT.  Volunteer Marek   18:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The WP:3RR page is very helpful, thank you. Largest Cardinal (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations
The article Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations is subject to discretionary sanctions. One of these sanctions is "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article". These edits and especially essentially restore material that was challenged in this edit. So, you were supposed to get consensus before reinserting these edits.

Please undo/self-revert these edits and let's discuss them on talk first.  Volunteer Marek  06:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I've self-reverted (manually) the edits you referenced. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's still been no one else commenting on the talk page (excepting Artw, who doesn't really count since he seemed to think we were talking about the "Roy Moore" article, and didn't comment thereafter). Do you know whether there is a certain point (say after a few days), when lack of any disagreement voiced at the talk page can be considered consensus?  It would seem a pity to not be able to clean up and clarify a paragraph when no one disagrees enough with my edits to even post on the talk page.  Thanks. Largest Cardinal (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)