User talk:Travis Knightley Wallace

August 2016
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. Sro23 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The page in question has been like that for a long time, and suddenly and randomly has been interfered with by someone with no knowledge of the subject and who keeps changing it to their liking.
 * Please see the article's talk page. It doesn't make sense to include individuals not notable enough for their own articles in an article about notable former pupils and staff. Sro23 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but all of those individuals are indeed notable as OEs so it does make sense to include them. Why has the annoying "I'm changing this" person suddenly appeared from out of nowhere to cause unwanted problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis Knightley Wallace (talk • contribs)


 * Please read WP:LISTPEOPLE, a Wikipedia guideline, and WP:3RR, a Wikipedia policy. When in doubt, discuss instead of reverting. Also, please sign talk page comments with four tildes, like this: – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
You appear to be engaged in an edit war on List of Old Emanuels. Please note that if you revert other users' edits to this article more than 3 times in a single day, you can be temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption. Rather than continue to revert others' edits, please address the matter at the article's talk page to discuss why you feel your version should remain. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I would hope this message has been sent to the person who has taken it upon themselves to continuously change List of Old Emanuels?
 * No single person removed the excessive content; rather three different editors did so (including myself), based on the discussion at Talk:List of Old Emanuels where it was agreed that the content violated WP:LISTBIO. You reverted three different editors in attempt to retain the original list. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why has the OEs page all of a sudden attracted the interest of professional Wikipedia bores with nothing to do but "remove excessive content" then defer to bureaucratic pedantry to show how it is 'in line with such and such policy'?

Travis Knightley Wallace who has scant regard for being in line with anything.
 * I can't speak for the other editors, but I came across the page performing a function called recent changes patrol. When I see an edit that adds over 60KB of text to a page, it catches my attention, so I looked into it. It is certainly unusual that a talk page comment made 5 years ago should result an edit today, but unusual does not automatically mean incorrect. In this case, Wikipedia has clear policies about what content should be included in lists like this, and the content of the article prior to the removal was in clear violation of those policies. We are trying to build the best encyclopedia in the world here; if an adherence to the policies agreed to by the community appears to you to be "bureaucratic pedantry", than I'll accept that label as a furtherance of the community's goals. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Signing your posts doesn't require remembering any complicated code. All you have to do is type four tildes ( ~ ) and the Wikipedia software will sign your post for you. If you can't remember the four tildes, there is an icon at the top of the edit box where you type your text (in my browser, its the third icon from the left at the top of the edit box -- it looks like a pen writing a name). Just click that icon to add your signature. No code to remember at all. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

OK sure, is there a way to permanently/indefinitely keep the original OEs list intact - not as 'the' Wkipedia page - for reference? The one with 142 refs. Travis Knightley Wallace
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "permanently/indefinitely" keeping the original page, but not as 'the' Wikipedia page. The longer version is still available in the page history: if you want to copy it to publish it elsewhere, you can do so. But "the" Wikipedia page (i.e. the current page as seen by default) should remain as the reduced version in order to comply with Wikipedia policies. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)