User talk:Diogenhty

September 2023

Hello, I'm AukusRuckus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Big Six (law firms) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I would be glad to discuss any concerns you may have about the article content.

Welcome to Wikpedia, @Diogenhty: I hope you enjoy the place and decide to continue editing. I would like to encourage you to fill in the edit summary box whenever you make changes; this is especially useful when the edits are large, as yours was. Doing so is helpful to other editors and can help avoid misunderstandings. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Ashurst Australia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diogenhty. You have new messages at Talk:Big Six (law firms).
Message added 07:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I hope you will discuss your concerns about article content there. Please also look at the earlier discussion sections as well, including:

In the meantime, I will be restoring the version of the page as it appeared prior to you edits. The content you removed was reliably sourced and, given the concerns expressed—over two or more years—on the talk page about the relative strength of "top tier" and the way it is couched, your edits do not appear to have consensus.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Big Six (law firms), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

Please do not revert the restored article without further discussion as that would not be compliant with Wikipedia editing policy. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Ashurst Australia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023: arbitrary break

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Big Six (law firms), you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were legitimate edits. I do not think it is just to threaten that I will be blocked from contributing to this wonderful site - of which I have previously donated (indication of my sincerity and commitment to sharing information - not an eco mix threat btw). Such hostile response is disconcerting. The other user reported me without allowing a discussion of my edits - which were made given the scope for uncertainty that the term Big Six (of which I also made edits) presents. That user that reported me has shown such rash behaviour in the past - please consult their history. I am looking for dialogue not negativity. Diogenhty (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You received what you call a "threat" as the third level in a programmed, staged series of warnings, the previous levels of which you chose to ignore. It is against Wikipedia editing policy to unilaterally continue to revert articles to your preferred version without discussion: That is disruptive, over and above whether your changes are legitimate or not.

Please discuss your changes before reverting. Contempt for the work of others is on display in your lack of any edit summaries, even when reverting for the second time. You used the 'revert' link at Big Six (law firms) where you must also have seen my edit summary request to you. Please respond to the specifics of the arguments at the talk page discussion before reverting. It is incumbent on you to attempt to reach a consensus. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply diffs or other evidence of "rash behaviour". I do not think we have wiki-met before, have we? Without evidence, this will go straight into the "bald-assertion rubbish bin" of evidence-free deflection. Bold talk indeed, from an editor who has managed to disgruntle three editors in two days! AukusRuckus (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be conflating me (i.e., AukusRuckus) with Jeraxmoira, the editor who has understandably filed a report and has never, to my knowledge, edited at Big Six (nor displayed any "rash behaviour" :-) ). AukusRuckus (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: It seems you did not use the "revert" link, but instead manually reverted me each time, so you may not have seen my requests in the edit summaries. There were, though, a least a couple of notices here asking for discussion. I find it difficult to decide if manually reverting a fellow editor and possibly not seeing their reason for restoring, or using the automated function and explicitly ignoring their invitation, is worse. Which more clearly exhibits a lack of collegiality would you say? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is me you are talking about w.r.t rash behavior, kindly mention or link to the diffs/ conversations here. I would like to apologize for the same if there are any. The reason I reported you is because you never bothered to explain your edits or reply to the warnings that were given previously, but you seem to have prior knowledge on how to edit articles. As you are a new account with no other contributions apart from Big Six (law firms) & Ashurst Australia, I assumed you were a sock of someone. I knew it was a bit too early to report but you were not responding to anyone but continued to edit the same articles again. I only patrol 'Minor edits by new users' and that's how I came across your contribution. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing wrong, nothing at all, Jeraxmoira. Thanks for the work you do: It's appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to say, now? A single drive-by attempted character assassination: is that it? AukusRuckus (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ashurst Australia. Adakiko (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain your valid reason for your edit in an wp:edit summary. Deleting 6k of text as you did in this edit to Big Six (law firms) needs to be explained in an edit summary. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the succinct and on-point explanation to the editor, Adakiko, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Is there any point to me trying another warning and / or invitation to discuss, do you think? AukusRuckus (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Diogenhty reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: ). Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023: Admin

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Big Six (law firms). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion awaits your input

Hello, Diogenhty. You have new messages at Talk:Big Six (law firms).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm still hoping you would be gracious enough to acknowledge the concerns I and others hold about your edits –especially your deletion of sourced content– by posting your reasoning on the article talk page. Perhaps at least some of this is misunderstanding, which we might be able to clear up with a bit of discussion. I live in hope! AukusRuckus (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:AustralianLawMan per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianLawMan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]