User talk:Shatter Resistance

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Shatter Resistance, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Shatter Resistance/AIC. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Focal socialisation agency


A tag has been placed on Focal socialisation agency requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greenmaven (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR sanctions
The Article Irish general election, 1918 falls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. You have violated this rule with your edits here and here, I suggest you stop now or you will be reported.-- Domer48 'fenian'  20:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have now reverted for a third time despite the above notice I strongly suggest you self revert or you will be reported.-- Domer48 'fenian'  20:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm just going to say I the final revert you mention before reading your first comment. However I would also like to point out the first 'violation' isn't a violation as it was a first revert. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to self revert as you are in breach of 1RR that is in place on the article. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments before editing again. I've had edit conflict a number of times now, it is hard to keep up. Can we please discuss IRR here and the extralegal/seperate debate there without crossover. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read your comments you still have reverted twice on an article that allows only one revert in a 24hr period. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm sorry about that but actually I was really only enforcing WP:BRD and as everybody seems to be struggling with understanding I didn't know I was doing anything wrong until 1. somebody told me, and 2. I actually read the message to be able to understand that. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, but you are now aware of the sanctions that are imposed on the article and I would urge you to self revert and take your case to the talk page. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Under WP:BRD the bold edit was the change I the reversion, the debate should be on the change not the original. We are in the same place now as we should have been under WP:BRD if other users hadn't violated that rule (which is what led me to accidently break 1RR) Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What rule did other editors breach? If you are talking about BRD then that is not a rule it is only an essay wrote by an editor and is not a guideline or policy. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a little more than an essay however that's not the point. If there can be no rational discussion even when I have provided evidence of my point and so far there has been no response to it then on the evidence my reversion is to keeping the article correct. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please read WP:REVERT you have now made another revert with an incorrect edit summary you don't get a new revert, as a revert is undoing the edits of another editor, again I would ask you to please self revert to avoid a block. Mo ainm ~Talk  20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To have made an edit just after it seemed that the reverts had stopped is just asking to be reverted. I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will in order to maintain the status quo. That is common practice and if need be I will have the page locked to prevent further changes as you are right that I'm not meant to keep on reverting. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

AE report
Your actions have been reported here.-- Domer48 'fenian'  21:05, 30 June 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) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)