User talk:Accuracymattersman

Neutral point of view - please discuss these matters on the article's talk page

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ralph Drollinger. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ralph Drollinger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content you recently posted on Sean Wallentine due to Wikipedia guidelines, which note that poorly sourced contentious material about living persons be removed immediately from the article. The link provided did not work, and the referenced content is clearly contentious. Justvote (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ralph Drollinger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ralph Drollinger. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Demiurge1000; The out of court settlement contained language wherein Capitol Commission agreed not to revert to ever once again using a capitol dome image in their logo. If you look at their earlier logo they had a dome image, used the same first word "capitol" and actually wrote their logo using the same type font as that of the registered trademark of Capitol Ministries. This is evidenced by comparing their earlier logo to their new one. Given the fact that they split from Capitol Ministries it is incumbent for them, legally to differentiate themselves in the marketplace (since they are providing the same services to the same trade channels). Why then would you not want to include this -- and yet include all the other related information?

Requests for comment

Please see Talk:Ralph_Drollinger#RfC:_How_much_emphasis_to_place_on_Capitol_Ministries.3F. Thank you. Zagalejo^^^ 23:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]