User talk:Thomas pow s

FYI
Boundarylayer and I have both referenced you in a thread at arbitration enforcement. If you want to comment (its optional) there is a section for your to do that. Just create a subheading with your own user name, following the existing format. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Though to do so would be a crystal clear case of WP:CANVASSING, with the aim of Votestaking, by contacting those who are presently engaged in a content dispute with me, NewsAndEventsGuy.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is that really the case? Aren't you required to inform me if you have referred to me during an arbitration? I'm not an expert on these wikipedia policies, but it appears that I should have been informed.


 * Thomas pow s (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:CANVASSING reads -Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.


 * Contacting you Thomas and telling you that you were 'mentioned' is one thing, failing to inform you that being contacted in this particular come and join toned way, would actually be a form of canvassing and what is considered, disruptive behavior. Specifically, the giving of pointers on how to make a new heading, with ' Just create a subheading with your own user name, following the existing format.'- That is to engage in nothing but a distruptive and thinly veiled attempt, at Votestacking and Canvassing. With NewsAndEventsGuy, having contacted you in this way, knowing precisely, that it is.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That's how I understand the rule, Thomas. If you mention someone, you have to tell them. And even if you don't have to, in my book its the respectful thing to do. BL, if you want to include this in an attempt for a WP:BOOMERANG sanction claim, by all means please do. Otherwise, please WP:DROPTHESTICK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Helpful tools
I saw your "waste of time" comment at article talk. If you're certain of your position then ask yourself if you have diffs (see Help:DIFF) and WP:Reliable sources to back you up. If so, then you might be struggling against WP:Tendentious editing. There are ways to address that. I'm still a little murky about which sources you say contradict the sources the other editor wants to use. If they are already listed at article talk, my apologies, its a long slog to read. Any chance you could add a bibliography to the article talk thread, using bullet points to list them? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Thomas pow s, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history 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 BRD 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)