User talk:Microbat98

May 2012
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to John Foster Dulles, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Microbat98. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Doctor Who (series 9). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 00:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Draft:The Pilot (Doctor Who)
Hi. I've made a draft article for the first episode of series 10. Feel free to edit it, but only move it into the mainspace when it has enough info and a consensus to move it has been achieved. Thank you. T ed E dwards  20:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Draft:Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who)‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --  Alex TW 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * A kind notice that you have now violated WP:3RR, an actual policy. --  Alex TW 16:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So have you, by edit warring. The same applies to you, especially considering you started the warring yourself. Microbat98 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Alas, that is not the case in my situation. --  Alex TW 16:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Alex that you really need to get to grips with what constitutes edit warring. To accuse me of edit warring with one revert is highly inappropriate. You're bordering on a block at this point; you really need to calm down, take a deep breath and avoid the highly inflammatory rhetoric, particularly the accusation that content is "made up." I documented the source of the title "The Doctors" as far back as I could; clearly it did not originate with DWN. You don't help your case when you keep beating a dead horse. Civility will get you far further than anger. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  20:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one insulting, he was. I never even lost my temper. I just feel that Wikipedia should be professional, and when characters like AlexTheWhovian act childish like this and rely on insults to win arguments and need to keep bringing old arguments back up to fuel flames, it's irritating, as it brings Wikipedia's reputation down. I've been calm, I've outlined my points, and yet all I got in return was insults.
 * You said yourself before that you can only find The Doctors through DWN. Rather than just saying theres more sources, please post them, because I can't find any. Microbat98 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact of the matter is, Drmargi we have one unofficial source claiming something weeks ago, and it was proven to be incorrect. Alex stated that it should be the official title, and I responded by saying it's a fansite and the information is more than likely incorrect. He disagreed and said that it was correct. When it was proven to be wrong, I changed the title to the official title, but he insisted on putting a line in the page that it was once called The Doctors, which is incorrect, to try and prove a point and childishly win an argument that doesn't even matter. Wikipedia should stand for being correct and using reliable and official sources, with multiple sources, not just one source that isn't official who could have very easily made a mistake. The fact that I'm being put in the wrong here, despite how endlessly calm I've been and the amount of logic I've used, is just ridiculous, when the other party has resorted to insults such as saying I have 'invisible friends', and having no argument past stating that one unofficial source stated something a few weeks ago that could have been a simple error. It's ridiculous, especially considering he's done the very same before. There's no professional attitude, and I refuse to give in to such unprofessional and childish behaviour; to someone who insists on posting something with no source. Microbat98 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not remotely interested in a discussion of who's right and who's wrong, nor a discussion of who may or may not be childish, and I'm certainly not going to discuss your perceptions of Alex behind his back. I've known him a long time, and know the measure of his work.  You are a new editor who has a lot to learn.  It would behoove you to listen a lot more, talk a lot less, and stop needing to be right all the time, or you're heading for a very unhappy, short career here.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that, because he's been around here for a while, that he has the right to post incorrect information and insult people, and that because I don't edit much here, I have to sit back and take it, letting incorrect information go out to perhaps hundreds of people, despite the fact that innit the one spurting out insults? It seems like you're onlyzgreeing with him out of bias, not logic and reason. Microbat98 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG. I said nothing of the sort.  Please, please resist the urge to put words in my mouth.  Frankly, this is hopeless.  You've dug yourself in, and you're not hearing what anyone else is saying to you.  I'm done.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  06:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny considering you yourself have agreed with me on this, stating that DWN most probably made a mistake. In fact, you made an entire comment agreeing with everything I've stated on the Doctor Who Talk page. But suddenly you changed your mind, stating that there is another source, and despite Alex's insults, that I'm over the line? I've been endlessly patient and provided tons of facts on the matter. Microbat98 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I brought up old arguments? Was it not you who brought up the Series 9 discussion? I've given you another source, yet you instantly threw that one down as unreliable as well; an editor simply cannot get a point across. You've now three editors reverting you to restore the content. And yet again, I seem to be repeating myself: I'm not saying it was called "The Doctors", I'm saying it was reportedly titled "The Doctors". Please read the content that you are trying to remove. Yes, I may not have been the most civil editor, but that doesn't give you a reason to violate 3RR either. DWN is and has always been a reliable source, meaning we can include the source - it is not up to us to determine when and where DWN got that information. --  Alex TW 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you never gave another source. I've asked for a link to a source at least three times and got nothing. Three editors? One's you, one's someone who previously agreed with me and only reverted my edit to stop edit warring clearly in favour of your edit out of bias, and the third just states that a source alphas been posted, not looking into the discussion or the source itself. If we have no official proof that it was called The Doctors, we should leave it out until we do. It's better to wait for confirmation, as that's more likely than the BBC or part of the production team denying it was called The Doctors. I doubt that name ever crossed their minds, so why would they deny something they know nothing about? Them being a reliable source means nothing when we have no other sources, it was posted three months ago, and it could easily have been a mistake, as Drmargi has previousmy stated. Microbat98 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)