User talk:Stuthomas4

This is my talk page. Old discussions are archived.

3RR further
You claim "I was well aware of the guideline and followed it accordingly", however you clearly made 4 reverts, not 2. Warnings are there to make sure you completely understand the rules. In this instance, I believe you may have missed something in WP:3RR, so I'm writing to try and help you understand. According to WP:3RR, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.'' Please note the "in part" and the "different material" phrasing. Here is the first edit you made:
 * 12:48, 11 July 2008

And the reverts:


 * R1 17:03, 11 July 2008
 * R2 17:22, 11 July 2008
 * R3 17:25, 11 July 2008
 * R4 23:40, 11 July 2008

It can be argued that your first edit accidentally copy and pasted way too much content, and therefore your first revert (restoring material from your first edit) was made to correct the error. But even given that, you still have 3 additional reverts. I'm just writing this so that you can fully understand the rules. It's ok, we all make mistakes. I just don't want you saying that you understand the policy and only reverted twice, when you clearly violated the letter of the policy. As long as you recognize the err of edit warring, are trying to reach consensus on the talk page, and have stopped reverting, I'm happy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to address them. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right,. there were three reverts. That other one was for fixing my own mistake, no argument necessary, that's a simple fact. But the fact is that there was an ongoing discussion, and new uninformed people were deleting the material that was the topic of that discussion. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[I consider this matter closed.]

Sanction
You could of course request adoption yourself voluntarily as a form of sanction. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stu, I don't think you need any sanction. You reacted in a totally human and understandable, if not glowing, way under pressure. You recognized it and apologized profusely. It's all admirable stuff and shows that you know how to behave, even if you aren't 100% perfect, but no one is. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie removal from the Hans Zimmer page.
Sorry reply to you so late. I removed the film The Whole Wide World from Hans Zimmer's Filmography because IMDB's files on Hans Zimmer and the film did not listed him as one of the composers.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
Could you please exclude plot detail from edit summaries? Try to keep discussion to the talk page. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People we're obviously not going to the talk page, just reverting out of hand. But yes, you're right. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I want to help with the article, but I'm tip-toeing around all the edit summaries and revisions. :) I'll be wringing my hands till next weekend... — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

cats / Captain Obvious
See my comment

Best regards - Revolving Bugbear  03:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Discussion about Captain Obvious ongoing. Feel free to contribute Here --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chris P. Bacon


The article Chris P. Bacon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Lacks depth of third party coverage needed to meet general notability guideline, most gigs are "additional music", "synth programmer", etc.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2012 (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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)