User talk:Red Rock Canyon

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * okay. Thanks. I think it's a good idea to get some more views on this issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

California Proposition 6 (2018)
Just would like to thank you for cleaning up the paragraphs and also allowing the edits that another user had made to remain. The Wikipedia User Yilloslime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yilloslime) removed all the opinions in the article and leaving to facts only. Wikipedia should not be used to affect decisions on an upcoming election, but should provide just facts for research.

Thanks again, hopefully the page stays this way, a great layout.

--CRTGAMER (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER

Uh oh...
I think maybe I edit conflicted you at Fascism. Sorry about that... Atsme 📣 📧 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lee J. Carter. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Lee J. Carter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. S. Salim (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Truth is, Jesse's been edit-warring over this for days, and now you're piling on to help him. No wonder nobody edits Wikipedia anymore. It's toxic. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest
Are you the original publisher??. Also, The edits I made to him are correct and rightfully so. if you'd like to discuss further, don't hesitate to message me. Jodyjoe27 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Disagreements
Thanks for reaching out to me outside of the talk page, so we can discuss this in isolation. You need to understand that I've been active on Wikipedia since 2006, and have been around when a lot of policies were initially being created. I don't have trouble understanding the policies, I just simply disagree with your interpretation and application of those policies. Moreover, you seem to be quite selective in terms of which policies are applicable: for instance, it is generally understood that a revert is a last resort when working on an article, as it is disruptive (see WP:REVERT, Alternatives to reversion, Revert only when necessary). Reverts should be made when there is a clear violation of rules, not when you are not convinced by that change. BRD does not encourage reverting in any way, it simply acknowledges that reverts happen when a change is clearly not an improvement. Adding additional information is by default an improvement, however you man disagree whether it is worthy of inclusion. BRD does not encourage you to revert every single thing you personally disagree with, since that introduces disruption and conflict (see WP:BRD-NOT, especially BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes and BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle). Therefore, once again I encourage you to stop reverting changes so liberally, because you are not helping. When it comes to Jacobin, reporters either leave out significant facts that would contradict the point they're trying to make, or they contain false statements is a very strong accusation, and the burden of truth is on your side. While I am trying to assume good faith, it does sound very much like you are biased against the magazine. Jacobin is a very respected magazine, and I do not recall any wider discussion here, or elsewhere in the media about how unreliable they are. Therefore, if you want to present a case against Jacobin, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that they are not reliable. I hope that you will finally stop reverting my changes whenever you don't like them, and instead discuss applicable policies on the talk page, before performing disruptive actions. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity...
which Red Rock Canyon? I regularly drive through two of them. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red Rock Canyon State Park (California). It's a place I've been through many times, but never actually visited. The visible strata are quite eye-catching, even when just driving by. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the closest one to me; we go through that one and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (though usually not both on the same trip.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Annoying pings
A new option was recently added to the wiki. If you visit the userpage or talk page of your annoying pinger, there's an option in the menu at the left of the page "Mute this user" which can block emails and/or notifications. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

For future reference
WP:RFO details the best way to ask for suppression, which should pretty much never be discussed in-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize
At WP:ANI, you apologized for your comment. But there's no reason to feel bad about it: To be honest, I didn't think of your argument when I recused myself, so maybe the recusal wasn't necessary. I, too, am confused about the applicable rules here; based on your argument, it may have been possible for me to un-recuse myself. However, as I already expressed at 15:53, 21 January, I wasn't very eager to keep working on that case and felt it was time for someone else to pick up the mop. I find it healthy to periodically practice WP:DISENGAGE. ◅ Sebastian 12:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)