User talk:Wenttomowameadow

xkcd link

You don't "revert" edits that have been made some time ago, before other edits and which are clearly not vandalism. Furthermore, you can't edit that link back in. Go to the article and look at the talk page. The onus is on you to show how the link is within guidelines before it's added, and at this point that's clearly not going to happen. Disparaging other people's edits by treating them like common vandalism is not the way to procede. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal seems to have been done without consensus. In the wikipedia addition and removal is done with consensus. This link seems to have been a long standing one, and hence requires consensus to remove. A previous poll was unable to find consensus to remove it.Rememberway (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote like American Idol. The comic is against guidelines, so the only way it can be included is if an agreement can be reached on why it should be a special case. You don't need reasons to keep things out of articles, you need reasons to include them. That's beyond the point and has been discussed on the article; the issue here is that you shouldn't be reverting valid changes for no reason with no explanation, particularly not to include content which is against guidelines. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not hard rules. Consensus is a hard rule. There is clearly no consensus to remove it. And please do not use the minor flag when reverting edits; it seems to me to deliberately implying disdain and disregard for other editors points of view, and pretty much does constitute a personal attack.Rememberway (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response to every point is "No it doesn't". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your general attitude, so does that reply.Rememberway (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is heated or personal. Please stop trying to make it look that way and instead concentrate on the issues. We have nothing more to discuss. If you want to continue adding content against generally excepted standards without consensus then you'll no doubt hear from other people too. NB: If you're embarrassed about a talk page conversation then please let me know before you decide to move it to my page in the future. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wanted it on your page, because if other people complain about your behaviour then it's easier for them to find in the talk page history.Rememberway (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way to complain about somebody's behaviour is to file a complaint, rather than making desperate passive-aggressive claims that they're misbehaving, otherwise it looks like you're playing silly little games. Enough nonsense now. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

See WP:3RR. Your stated intention "I will revert again and request that the article is temporarily locked next time" is probably not as good an idea as using the discussion page at Talk:Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame). Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it twice in the past 24 hours and that would have made it my third. Given that you're a vocal participant and just made the same revert as the "opposing" reverter, could you explain the validity in warning me for reverting something twice? This is ridiculous. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning may have been a bit premature, but not ridiculous, I think. The point is that there's a genuine good case for the validity of an external link to a very relevant technical cartoon, and you shouldn't just be reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through that argument here again, but you'll notice that there are many editors who think that the comic shouldn't be there at all, and I doubt that you'd find it acceptable behaviour if they gave you warnings for adding it back in. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarraldo147

Sense of humour bypass? How do you find these edits? Fitzcarraldo147 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place to show off what we think is funny. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiShares

Hello .. haven't been on Wiki in awhile.. sorry to see you have completely reverted the contribution of my article on the buzz all over facebook and online at Peta regarding Lipton research. Perhaps asking for more references.. and giving it a moment would have been more productive. Further.. I notice you looked up my other contribution found it and reverted it. That was a bit stalky. Thanks for the warm welcome back. Please put back the edits and if you like modify them and perhaps find another source.. or simply request I find more. Your swift deletion of user contributions is off putting, and will deter other contributors, which I am sure you did not intend. Please assist in the facts now subverted by putting them back in place, your edits welcome. Thank you for the prompt and courteous review of your conduct. --WikiShares (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert your edits immediately because they had content that is potentially damaging and absolutely cannot be published here without proper third-party coverage (note: Facebook and PETA will never be acceptable sources for this). It's not stalky to check somebody's other edits when they have posted something contentious. I won't be restoring your edits for obvious reasons, and I won't support any attempt by you to restore them. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]