User talk:Anythingyouwant: Difference between revisions

On 12 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euphorbia arbuscula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the succulent Euphorbia arbuscula of Socotra is used to feed goats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euphorbia arbuscula. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Euphorbia arbuscula), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything, there is no way that your latest revert [1] was “a continuation of your last edit”. There were multiple intervening edits, and a time gap of more than 8 hours, between those edits. I suggest you self-revert. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per request. I could have made that edit together with my previous one, so it doesn’t seem like edit-warring, but whatever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction applies to this article:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

You have asserted "no consensus to replace "co-author" but you have not demonstrated that (probably cuz it's false) and so you have violated DS by reinserting your POV that Trump "co-authored" all those books when the cited source states "ghostwriter". This is a required warning. Please self-undo your violation. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of any uncertainty, please be aware that I pinged you at a post on Coffee's talk page where I asked him to look at your behavior at Donald Trump in light of what appears to me to be willful gaming of the sanctions there. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself immediately: in no way can these back-to-back edits be considered a challenge or revert by the restrictions I placed on the article. Moving data is NOT a challenge nor is it in any way possible a revert. You have one option here and one option alone: undo your edits immediately (which I will remove the full protection placed once I receive your word you are going to) or face a sanction (from a block, up to a 1 month topic ban from the article) for gaming Arbitration Enforcement remedies. I do not like to see this type of behavior out of someone who knows the sanctions are not supposed to be used like this, considering how often you've gotten involved in ensuring the restrictions are enforced when it suits you. I am not pleased with you at all right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has been locked, User:Coffee. Otherwise, I would be glad to revert my edit pasting the material lower in the article. However, I see absolutely no reason to revert my first edit removing it. It is new material, and I am allowed to challenge it be reversion, obviously, and AI did challenge it by reversion. He it has been restored despite an obvious lack of consensus and the talk page where the matter was discussed at considerable length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]