User talk:Ziggypowe

February 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Three-Fifths Compromise, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Richard Dawkins. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  01:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook incident Straw Poll at Mitt Romney
There is currently a Straw poll taking place here, your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  02:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?
Can you please show me where the consensus was reached on the Dark Knight Rises talk page?--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of the statement at hand was reached per consensus. An individual editor cannot delete content after there has been a consensus as to the wording of such content. It was reached here. If for some reason you dispute this as an consensus please discuss.--Ziggypowe (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I see a debate you initiated, which became a long discussion that did not terminate in a consensus... simply calling it one doesn't make it such. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors involved agreed through discussion on the wording chosen. How is that not consensus?--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One editor says they agree with you, and another says they prefer "mostly" over "largely". Again, where is the consensus?--Williamsburgland (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an compromise and consensus on the wording. In the end we settled for "mostly," and compromised by not including "acclaimed" or "largely" or the like. In fact, Bignole, one of my principal opponents on the matter was the person who added "mostly," which was probably the product of him compromising.--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bignole states that "largely" in grammatically incorrect, and goes on to say "Thus, it is better to just leave out any additional modifier, unless you're going to be more specific about what you're saying." This does not mean the editor has agreed with you or proposed a formal compromise, much less a consensus. There isn't one here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bignole added "mostly" here.--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is bordering on circular logic here - Bignole exchanged "largely" for "mostly" - he/she didn't support the inclusion of that sentence. I don't understand why you're so keen on it - the RT rating tells the story just fine... what's wrong with that?--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, we agreed on the wording. If editors agree on the wording of content, then they saliently want such content to remain in the article. If we did not want it in the article why debate over the wording? Moreover, I believe it is a good summary statement of the reception of a film. FA articles such as Jurassic Park and Battlefield Earth have similar summary statements of reception.--Ziggypowe (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're treating something as consensus when it clearly is not. Further, the presence of certain verbiage in a FA doesn't mean it's ok - FA's might have misspellings: does that mean we can't correct them?--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's a clarification from that editor. There is clearly no consensus on the talk page in question, and several supporting arguments on other talk pages supporting my view. I am now reverting it; please return to the talk page if you wish to build a consensus.--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at The Dark Knight Rises. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * There is nothing disruptive about my edits. I simply restored content that there wasn't any consensus to remove in the first place. Their was multiple editors who discussed and were satiated with the wording of the content and you as an individual decided to remove the content without consensus, as its removal was being disputed. You are the one that gave up on discussion by removing it in the middle of it being disputed. You cited discussions you had on other pages in the past that resulted in no consensus and then presented these discussions as if they have some authoritative force. These presented discussion are no more then a place to get insight on arguments with respect to the matter at hand - nothing more. If you feel vehemently about the content's removal and content like it on other film articles you should endeavor to get a policy change. It seems majority of film articles have similar content, including many GA and FA articles. You don't think just because you disagree with similar content's inclusion you can just go into any of those articles and remove it? The content is apt for restoration and I will perpetrate such if not meet with a sound rebuttal. I will wait a little while before I restore as a courtesy, as it was removed without consensus in the first place, while its removal was being disputed and contended.--Ziggypowe (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook redux
It's back. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)