Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New essay[edit]

There have been times I've suggested to editors they follow 1RR, and they've possibly taken the suggestion the wrong way - as if I was suggesting they're at fault or something. Anyway, I've written a new essay, called WP:In praise of 1RR, to attempt to explain why I think following 1RR is a good idea. Any comments most welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"once a day, in a 1-on-1 edit war"?!? Isn't that kind of missing the point? The way I understand 1RR, it means "never re-revert", not "make the same revert only once every 24 hours". Paradoctor (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I think you're following 0RR. PhilKnight (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I won't edit if I expect it to be reverted.Do I smell an essay? I admit I recently did a re-revert, but I guessed that the pointer to Adambro's remark would do the trick. Seems to have worked so far. Paradoctor (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger Mini-14[edit]

{{helpme}}

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I am probably not on the right page to submit this, but maybe it can be passed on to the proper channels. Pulled up "Ruger Mini-14 rifle" ...I noticed that California Department of Correction, and the Tennessee D O C were listed as customers/users of this particular firearm. I did not see North Carolina listed here. I retired from North Carolina D O C a few years ago and I can unequivocly state the NCDOC also Uses these rifles at practicly all the various DOC facilities across the state. Hope to see this up-dated, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.44.45 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 moved to talkpage by benzband (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the gentleman that NCDOC used this weapon for about 25 years. I'm having a hard time locating a reliable source to cite that however. What I have found have been primary sources and not usable for our purposes. I have been unable to find NCDOC's use of the Mini-14 mentioned in my books or through a Google Book search but someone else may be able to locate one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needed[edit]

I'm of the opinion this is needed more than ever before. Anyone interested in reviving it? Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are alive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously! And that is good news. I saw your username at Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club/Members and even noted that there's been one more member added this year. But I also noted that this talk page hadn't been edited for some years, and nor has the project page. Are the challenges to harmonious editing really that static? Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we are meant to passively demonstrate harmony by example? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Among other things, yes, and that's the most important. Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think clubs, associations and the like have just become less popular on Wikipedia over time. It is still a good idea though. Dysklyver 10:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are some very active and committed Wikiprojects, which seems to have been part of the problem with NYRM2016, which was the most spectacular example of destructively and frustratingly inharmonious editing I've seen recently! Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I don't think it's explicitly mentioned on the project page, meatball:DefendEachOther is also an objective IMO. It's implied in other ways. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here?[edit]

This club seems to be defunct, but I want to make sure. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this place is open for business. By and large, the HEC objectives are mainstreamed, and it is not generally considered harmonious to to talk about oneself, or to uninvited push one's objectives into every corner.
What brings you here today, Mark? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. ¶ In answer to your question, I just wrote a little piece about it: User:Markworthen/Feeling misunderstood and attacked. Thanks for asking. :o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to edit harmoniously.[edit]

It's good, to me. jp×g 12:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Me too. Harmony is good for the soul, don't you think? Penguinmlle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer and Editor[edit]

All type photoediting and photography kiya jata hei Rc editing club (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harmonious_editing_club&oldid=1165328091"