User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2015/August

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cwobeel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What does 3RR mean? Allegations (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Allegations: It is the 3-revert rule. See WP:3RR - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for posting the 'listen to Wikipedia link'. POWERFULL! If you Want to understand what the WP project is about, this is it. Should be on the auto read for all new users! It is larger than the sum of it's parts! 01:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.48.252 (talk)

yes, it is quite something, isn't it? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see this article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't use Twinkle on established editors making legitimate edits. That's an abuse of the tools. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See here SW3 5DL (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, Twinkle shouldn't be used on any editor making legitimate edits. SW3 5DL, can you point to a community consensus that length of service should exempt one from Twinkle warnings? If so, that's something I need to know. If not, please present your opinion as your opinion, not fact. It shows that you know the difference. The section you cited does not address that question, only saying. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. For my benefit, could you explain how that pertains to "established editors making legitimate edits"? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The use if Twinkle to undo good faith edits with an edit summary is permitted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rod Steiger. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Against the backdrop of other current government computer security lapses, notably the large-scale theft of files from the Office of Personnel Management, most specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in the Clinton account was probably of marginal consequence." and "“I think the whole set of circumstances has been scrambled by political considerations surrounding the presidential campaign,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. He said the inadvertent “spillage” of classified information into an unclassified system is quite common." User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: Thanks. It may be best to expand on that in the article. The current wording leaves the reader wondering. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is very likely that we will be editing same articles for months to come, and to tell you the truth, it sucks all the fun out of it to have a combative approach to editing,. You may not like the way I or other edits, you may assume the worst from others, it is all up to you. But rather than taking this approach, that will stress you out to no end, take it easy, Wikipedia does not need you or I. Take a break, if you must, but please be kind to others, and try to be concise. No one likes to read wall-to-wall text and no one likes tantrums. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, these words of advice apply to you also. I encourage you to follow your own advice.--ML (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel: I will stress to you that the comments from the admin yesterday did not just apply to me but also to you. The specific comments that applied also to you include: (1) "I hope that these editors can stay away from each other a bit more." and (2) "Focus on the issues." (and the comments above have nothing to do with the issues.) and (3) "It is in their best interest to tone that down some--it makes working with other editors that much easier. And that, of course, goes for everyone involved here" (everyone involved here includes you). Best,--ML (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that one reads what one wants to read. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Signac. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on the Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)