User talk:Robert O'Brien
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dunc's warning was not "bogus" but a helpful attempt to alert you to policy. I suggest you also read WP:CIVIL. JoshuaZ 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it was bogus. Robert O'Brien 11:03 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
-
- I suggest you read WP:RULES, including WP:3RR. Posting a 3RR warning is always recommended when an editor appears to be reverting and may not be aware of the rule. This is encouraged. Calling it "bogus" shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the 3RR Warning, which is to help new editors understand the rules. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have read it. Robert O'Brien 11:22 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
- Then I am sure you noted WP:3RR#Enforcement where is stated: Educating users who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter. which would indicate that this is policy, not bogus. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the 3 reversions? (Actually, the rule states more than 3.) I count 2. Since when do admin issue a "3RR" warning for 2 reversions? As I said, bogus. Robert O'Brien 11:32 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
- Users give helful tips and warnings whenever they feel it is necessart. These have by nature a somewhat subjective element based on how the user is editing what they are editing whether they have said anything on the talk page etc. While I would have waited until a 3rd revert to point out the rule if I were in his position and would have tried to do so more politely that doesn't make the comment "bogus" By the way are you the same Robert O'Brien that tangled with Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars a while back? JoshuaZ 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Joshua, I am the same Robert O'Brien. Robert O'Brien 11:43 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
- Users give helful tips and warnings whenever they feel it is necessart. These have by nature a somewhat subjective element based on how the user is editing what they are editing whether they have said anything on the talk page etc. While I would have waited until a 3rd revert to point out the rule if I were in his position and would have tried to do so more politely that doesn't make the comment "bogus" By the way are you the same Robert O'Brien that tangled with Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars a while back? JoshuaZ 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the 3 reversions? (Actually, the rule states more than 3.) I count 2. Since when do admin issue a "3RR" warning for 2 reversions? As I said, bogus. Robert O'Brien 11:32 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
- Then I am sure you noted WP:3RR#Enforcement where is stated: Educating users who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter. which would indicate that this is policy, not bogus. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have read it. Robert O'Brien 11:22 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
- I suggest you read WP:RULES, including WP:3RR. Posting a 3RR warning is always recommended when an editor appears to be reverting and may not be aware of the rule. This is encouraged. Calling it "bogus" shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the 3RR Warning, which is to help new editors understand the rules. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
(reduce indent) Ah, I see the confusion. The warning is supposed to be given before 3RR, so the editor is aware of the rule and can avoid breaking it. All clear now? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the repairs to Arius
I made a mistake and removed that content when I was moving things around. I don't really know why I missed it, but I am glad you caught it. I appreciate your restoration. It was an error on my part. I also agree with your other edits which make it less POV.
I may not be helpful to you on PZ Meyers. First, upon looking at the article, it appears to be a bio on a non-noteable person. I would think it should be deleted. Second, I note that you are using blog sources (including your own). I am opposed to blog sources, even (or especially) as sources of criticism. --Blue Tie 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
