User talk:CartoonDiablo/Archive 2

Diablo I see you have been reprimanded before. I will settle with you. You can put my information on China PISA where you think it should be and I will leave your incorrect information alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webvip (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Silver

Nate Silver started out on DK. He has stated his support for Obama. He is no less biased than Rassmussen. He is also not a polling expert when it comes to question methodology. He understands statistics, but that he thinks a question is biased is a completely different animal. To say he is a polling expert (which he is not) and then use that to say that Rassmussen is methodology is biased because of the question is a linking of two seperate issues. Let us please not turn the section into a fight about the polls, which are all basically worthless anyway. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super (2010 American film)

Just wanted to say thanks for improving the article and keep up the good work.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello CartoonDiablo,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look itno it? Thank you.71.101.40.113 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your post & replied on the IP listed talk page. Thx again!71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: now that I see you editing the page, thank u 4 the watcful eye. My job as a Good Samaritan is mostly done 4 now.

(-:/ 71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need More Help

Sorry to bother you again, CartoonDiablo, but I need more help as described in Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Proposed_New_Section. Two other editors changed things, but one of them was a 'bot' and it was a mistake, and we got that resolved. However, the 2nd editor, 72Dino, made two other changes -- one of them looked OK, but the 2nd one, regarding Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link looked incorrect -- I'm not saying that 72Dino was wrong -- he may be right -- the links may not belong there (I think that they do belong), but let's say he's right: Even if the 'External Links' don't belong there, they certainly belong on SOME related College Tuition page --and by the way, looking at the registration dates and such of these pages, it looks certain that ALL of them are 'permanent' sources of information, likely to be around for a long time. Could you please take a look? It is important to offer full resources to the readers on the subject at hand. Thank you!71.100.187.222 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the edits were correct since the links weren't very objective and were previously removed from the other article. Anyways, my suggestion is to be more self-reliant (not to be meant as an insult :P) and sort the things out in the discussion page, and if there's an edit conflict where you feel your right, go to the appropriate noticeboard and take it up there. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx for your review -- so, yes, I'd agree that advocacy websites are NOT objective.!

(-:/

That's the whole point, he heh... anyhow, they are very well-researched and well-sourced (even if quite biased) external links --but they are subject-related. So, where, in your opinion, would they belong? Certainly they have some utility? Thanks!71.100.187.222 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Seeing the 'External Links' page, I will try and go there, asking for help -- they say not to discuss things on THAT page, but rather to go there, asking others to come over the to talk page of the article in question -- OK -- I'm there. Thx.71.100.187.222 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Hi, another editor is trying to remove the section you added to Super (2010 American film) about the analysis under the grounds that it's WP:OR. It's not, because it comes from a published review/analysis (RedLetterMedia), but could you perhaps give it a look and maybe add specific quotes from critics discussing it? Editors can pretty anal about this stuff so this would help.

For example, on Randall Flagg there's a section on character analysis Randall_Flagg#Characterization here that should give you an idea.

If you need any help, let me know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of Democracy

I will be submitting an arbitration request per the Crisis of Democracy page. I see that you are currently expanding the page, but the issue was not length. Rather, it is the irrelevance of this report and Chomsky's response beyond the Trilateral Commission. Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but the topic is not worthy of the page. All best. Sailingfanblues (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is noteworthy by itself and certainly distinct from the Trilateral article. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super again

Thought you might want to see this: Talk:Super_(2010_American_film)#.22Themes.22_section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi CartoonDiablo,

You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. — C M B J 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Vietnam War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Liberation Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

Please change your latest edit of the article on the war in Vietnam. It is not a complete sentence and makes no sense as is. Kdammers (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it (Revision as of 2012-04-12T01:56:43 (edit)CartoonDiablo (talk | contribs)← Previous edit Revision as of 2012-04-12T02:20:58 (edit) (undo) )is a fragment. Maybe you did cause it to be, but what you left is a fragment. The word "whereas" introduces a dependent clause: it is comparing Z to B within one sentence, with the independent clause separated from the clause beginning with"whereas" by a comma. I can see no comma in your sentence. Kdammers (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)![reply]

I did not remove the data. I would have corrected the error without a message if I had understood what was meant to be written. Kdammers (talk) 8:29 am, Today (UTC+9)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited Tea Party movement, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medicare and Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. When you recently edited Programme for International Student Assessment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Merida and Enrollment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration versus dispute resolution

This is not arbitration, it is the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is a big difference between the two, most notably that arbitration deals more with editor behaviour rather than article content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution notice

I happened to be looking at another incident on that page when I noticed your case there, you stated that all involved editors had been notified, and I see you left a msg on the article talk page, but that notice (this one: "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Propaganda model". Thank you.") is supposed to be placed on each involved user's talk page, not the article talk page. I would suggest that you may want to take care of that ASAP before any reviewing admin comes along and immediately closes your case for not following procedure. Just a suggestion. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for Arbitration

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although our decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions, informal mediation, and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Guerillero | My Talk 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2012 Zombie controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Zombie controversy 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/2012 Zombie controversy 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 high-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. Robofish (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 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/Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 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 high-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. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 08:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

The article Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is all speculation, I don't believe there is enough to connect each case together to actually make an article about it. It feels more like wishful thinking for people who desire a "zombie apocalypse"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alphaswitch91 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

It would be helpful if you had some input into this article, some suggestions have been made as to where the article should go from here Alphaswitch91 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sowell

Do you have any intention of engaging in the discussion further or are you removing yourself from the situation? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith that you didn't watch my talk page, given that you've been editing again and haven't responded. What I had said was that the issue is at the Sowell page, so we can discuss it there. There's no "Wikiquette" problem, obviously, just a content dispute that needs solving. If you're uninterested in continuing the discussion there, say so and those of us who are trying to improve the article will do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs)

As noted to you numerous times before, your dispute with the other editor has nothing to do with me, and is not binding anyway - the person who gave their input is now permanently banned from Wikipedia, so I doubt much that occurred there could be considered worthwhile in that context. You clearly have the time to give some input at the article, so please do so or we will be forced to assume you're not interested in resolving the issue. More than 4 days without answering the issues at talk while you've been editing elsewhere is clearly enough good faith at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone at the Wikiquette page noted that this looks like a content dispute, it's why I'm asking you to engage at the talk page of Sowell to deal with the dispute so we can all move forward. I'm forced to comment here as well because it's the only way I know you're seeing the messages. If you responded to them promptly at talk and elsewhere, we wouldn't have to go about it this way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited School voucher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. Please take the advice given to you a few months ago about the same matter, as well as the advice given by the arbitrators. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content issues, only on conduct issues. You should pursue other forms of dispute resolution, as suggested. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're also patiently waiting for your response over at the public opinion talk page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Guttmacher Institute State Abortion Restrictions.png

Thanks for uploading File:Guttmacher Institute State Abortion Restrictions.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sowell and Public health care

I'll point you here since you're citing it: "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors." Very clearly, on the talk page and here on your own talk page, I have asked you to return to the discussion. You have not only refused to do so, but have gone and reverted the changes without further discussion - in the case of Sowell, a change that has been in place for close to three weeks. I implore you to please discuss your changes and your concerns, and answer the questions posed to you at the talk pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the discussion here. While I may not have been a part of those discussions for some time you cannot revert due to no consensus or because there is no discussion which is, in fact, in violation of Wikipedia policy. The other thing is in those discussions you make no effort at an actual good faith discussion. In Public opinion article I offered numerous ways to reconcile the issue to which you either ignored or tried to remove the material wholesale and rejected participating in the dispute resolution even though it was clear there was no consensus. In the Sowell article you refused the accept the dispute resolution we spent the time working out and instead opted to remove it.

In both cases you ignored attempts to reconcile the issue and tried to maintain the reverted non-consensus by refusing to participate in dispute resolution. If you want a good faith discussion then I suggest you engage in one and if no consensus can be reached to actually participate in dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of Wikipedia policy on my end, sorry. I have asked you repeatedly to continue the conversation to find some common ground. You instead threaten people, rush to other forums, and leave the rest of us hanging. I have not been part of any dispute resolution at Sowell, and I provided a middle ground - keep the criticism, remove the MMfA link. You have never once responded to that, instead ignoring us for weeks and then trying to get arbitrators to impose it for you, which didn't work.

In all cases so far, you have consistently refused to engage in discussion. If you're not discussing and just blindly reverting, those of us trying to discuss with you and come to a conclusion are not going to be the ones who will have trouble later. Remember - the burden of proof is on those who want to add the information. If you're not providing any reason to keep it, no one is going to come to your side. I look forward to your responses on the Sowell and health care article talk pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The violation is reverting due to no consensus, you get consensus from somewhere else or you leave it. So where did I "threaten people"? Was it when I offered a way to reconcile the public opinion article, was it when I created a dispute resolution for an obvious deadlock which dispute resolution is used for? In the Sowell article you may not of been in the dispute resolution but it applies to you regardless, that aside, the issue is inclusion of the source, not the controversy so the "middle ground" is irrelevant to the dispute.

What you seem to be missing is you are not engaging in an actual good faith discussion; either you avoid the issue and if we hit a deadlock because of the avoided issue you don't take the next step in dispute resolution to fix it. I don't see how anyone can claim to be in good faith when they avoid an issue and then avoid solving it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing an essay, not any sort of policy or consensus. You've threatened arbitration at the Sowell page for those who disagree with you. You ran to dispute resolution within 24 hours of engaging at talk because you didn't like where the discussion was going. You act like dispute resolution is binding when it clearly says its not. I'm happy to engage in good faith discussion, but it requires you to actually discuss. But I see you've decided to join us at talk again, so we'll take the discussion at the relevant pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Very Serious People

The article Very Serious People has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article less than 60 days old about a term, supposedly a capitalized proper noun; nominated for deletion based on: * WP:SIGCOV: Topic has no significant coverage * WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Topic seems at best a passing wannabe neoligism unlikely to endure * WP:NOT#DICTIONARY: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. →gab 24dot grab← 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's typically a mistake to do nothing but delete the WP:PROD tag. We'll see; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MarxMail?

Can you explain why the piece from MarxMail.org that you just added to Rudolph Rummel qualifies as a WP:RS?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the pisa thing

Hi... on that edit, well, I noticed you stopped discussing the moment I stopped changing the article. It wasn`t a particularly good encyclopedia entry, but I don`t see the argument for vandalism as valid. What was exactly the wrong information presented? It may have incurred in OR, NPOV, essay etc. It was humorous and uncyclopedic. But the page was better after the edit: it explained the rationale of the poverty measures used and why it was a wrong comparison, it gave sources for the figures used, and the claim that there was a hint of american exceptionalism was based on one blog post that referred to the mel riddle data - also sourced.

I know that it was not your intention and that your contribution aimed at improving the article, pointing out to how poverty influences the scores, but that simply isn`t an issue related to the united states any more than the other countries. Actually, it would be nice to write something about it as general criticism of pisa. Now, would you care to go back to discuss the issue on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women edits

I have reverted your latest change to War on Women - your edit summary points to the Talk page discussion but there is no consensus for your position; please do not edit war over this issue. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring at War on Women. If you continue you risk getting blocked.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Thomas Sowell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

You asked another editor to make a controversial edit on your behalf at Thomas Sowell. Do not coordinate with other editors to continue an edit war when you have reached 3RR. This is a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sowell

I did discuss it on talk, but I see that you have not responded to my discussion, so go there first. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit

Er... I think your last edit was in error. Suggest your self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just leave it like that. The other editor removed the now defunct page protection tag and restored the paragraph. You reverted that and now self reverted. That was what confused me - I didn't understand why you reverted the other editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women: "redefining rape"

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, CartoonDiablo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. Belchfire-TALK 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mitt Romney's tax returns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gallup

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gallup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR infraction

Tea Party movement has a strict 1RR rule on edits -- you are now at 2RR -- please self-revert your second revert as otherwise a biright-line violation has occurred which will be reported at WP:EW/N Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]