User talk:Trift

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Mbhiii (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – edit filter log – CentralAuth – SI

Hello, Trift, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.I am Earlymen, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Earlymen message me! 05:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is an article that explains the major problems with that paper, and why it says absolutely nothing about peoples opinion about wealth distribution. The text you added references this paper in an effort to claim that the population has a particular opinion. You can't do that, because the paper does not show (nor does it attempt to show) that. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Oh, and don't WP:EDITWAR. You obviously have taken the press reports on this paper at face value, unfortunately they are incorrect. Ask instead of just reverting. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC))Reply

I remind you again to not edit war, but instead try to engage in constructive debate. If you violate Wikipedia policy, you may be blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Redistribution of wealth. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Brambleclawx 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your concern. To the best of my understanding, I will not break the rules. Please render an opinion on the dispute or find someone with appropriate knowledge who will. -Trift (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again: I never claimed they are mutually exclusive. It's a red herring, Stop edit warring. I've asked for a third opinion. If we don't get one, you can take this to RfC of you want. Edit warring will not get you anywhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not "seem to believe it", it is simply your misunderstanding. Your edits are disruptive and you are not engaging in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

In these cases, the reversions are for cause. I do not wish to inhibit your editing, only to encourage you to pay more attention to the informed opinions of the rest of us. -Trift (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't even referring to your WP:HOUNDING of me above, but thanks for bringing it up. Please desist with that as well. Your edits are purely disruptive at this time. You need to learn to engage in constructive debate instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for constructive debate, but that requires careful reading, consideration, acknowledging you may not fully understand a subject, and waiting for others to weigh in. -Trift (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Trift, exactly. It seems we finally are starting to have an understanding of what it necessary. I look forward to you joining in the constructive consensus building from now on. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

May I point out to both of you point number 2 in the original warning: Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Both of you need to stop reverting each other until either a consensus or compromise is reached. Brambleclawx 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Trift. You have new messages at Brambleclawx's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Trifft. Thank you for your contribution to the article on regulatory capture. The quote you added to the "Theory" section, however, was already in the article under the section on the Interstate Commerce Commission. Also, you took the quote from an interview with Thomas Frank, where he did not mention the name of the source and when you did name the speaker, you attributed the quote to William H. H. Miller, which was not correct. It was Richard Olney who said it. I have fixed this in the Theory section and not removed it, even though the quote was already in the ICC section, in part because the article is very long and also because the quote in the ICC section is longer. In future, please take care to make sure a quote is not already in use in the article. Thanks! Marrante (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I think you got it right. -Trift (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome and thanks for fixing that duplication. Marrante (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Redistribution of wealth has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. You used the summary "fix old link" when you in fact removed a perfectly valid refimprove template. This can be construed as you trying to hide what edits you do, so use correct edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Ref: [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I improved the ref by replacing an empty Ibid. To what else does the refimprove template refer? -Trift (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

"The ref"? It was a tag for the article as a whole you removed. It needs more references, and it is still i need of more references as many of the claims it does aren't referenced. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your removing of comments at the talk page for Redistribution of wealth is not constructive. 108.100.123.29 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films considered the best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply