Jump to content

User talk:Constitutionguard

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

Welcome!

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

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! Ferrie (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kernell

[edit]

Please, seek community consensus before making changes to a controversial topic, as you consistently have been doing on the redirects related to David Kernell. I would advise you to discuss your concerns on Talk:Sarah Palin email hack (as you have already done with other issues you had with that article). Cheers, Waldir talk 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help requests

[edit]

I've copied your two help requests from Talk:David Kernell and Talk:Sarah Palin email hack

{{helpme}}

I had sought community consensus before making the changes to David Kernell article, I placed these comments on that article's discussion page. see Talk: David kernell " Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of Wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed." I added this comment over a month ago. I added content to the article yesterday because it is indeed an article, not a redirect page, and thus should have content. As stated, I feel that its existence violates the the policy of Wikipedia, and is a politically motivated attack upon an individual. The fact is that Mr. Kernell is not the only one that obtained unauthorized access to Sarah Palin's account, rather at least five people did, according to trial testimony. I see no mention of them in the article, nor any redirects using variations of their name as is the case with Mr. Kernell Constitutionguard (talk)

Hi there. So, I think...you feel there is clear consensus to make the change, and made it, but it has been removed, by Waldir (talk · contribs)? Therefore, please explain that to that user, on their talk page. Maybe they will agree with you, and that will sort it out. If they do not agree, and you still feel the consensus is clear, then see WP:DISPUTE - ie seek a third opinion or whatever.
For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Chzz  ►  15:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice cup of...

[edit]

Shearonink (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

July 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to David kernell, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to David c. kernell. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. — e. ripley\talk 17:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. Ripley, those edits look nothing like vandalism. Please, I ask you to be more careful and mind WP:BITE. Cheers, Waldir talk 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were highly contentious unsourced BLP allegations which were properly reverted on sight (I was on vandalism patrol at the time, I'm not involved in any of these articles normally). My earlier warning was quite clear about citing reliable sources. What else is a repetition of the same if not revertible vandalism? You're right about WP:BITE though and for that I do apologize -- I was on vandalism patrol at the time as I said and the stepped warnings are of course rote and not as couched or lengthily-explained as might be preferable in this situation. Still, that the warnings didn't set off some kind of self-reflection is not good. I woke up this morning to see the same unsourced allegations back in the article. I've answered more fully on the article's talk page and reverted, once again. — e. ripley\talk 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this is occurring across multiple redirects: David Kernell as well as David kernell. One note for Constitutionguard, which I've also left at Talk:David kernell: We only need one article to contain the full text of what you're seeking to achieve. Regardless of the answer to the question of whether David Kernell needs his own article or not, we shouldn't copy text into David kernell because it's only intended to serve as redirect in case someone accidentally doesn't capitalize his last name. — e. ripley\talk 13:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quickly reply to your point above: I understand your point of view (about repeating the behavior and lack of self-reflection) and appreciate your kind response. Of course, the interaction was not ideal from both sides, but unfortunately it's impossible to hold the hand of every newcomer.
Regarding the article itself, I see some discussion is already taking place in its talk page, and I'm sure we'll reach a reasonable conclusion. --Waldir talk 11:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to David Kernell, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Articles for deletion nomination of David Kernell

[edit]

I have nominated David Kernell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kernell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –MuZemike 07:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop copying things from article talk pages to the AFD page. That page is only for discussing whether an article should be deleted or not, not what content changes should be made. Content changes should be discussed at the article's talk page. — e. ripley\talk 17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers

[edit]

You need to post arguments about article content on the article's talk page instead of at the deletion page. I know this is really confusing, but I've been around here a while and I'm just trying to help you. I would encourage you to post discussions about article content to the talk page of the article in question. I copied discussion to the Sarah Palin email hack article because I wanted to encourage you to continue content discussions there. That's because the David Kernell article is all but certain to remain a redirect, per the vote at the deletion page, and so discussing article content won't be appropriate there. Instead, it will only be appropriate at Sarah Palin email hack, so we might as well start migrating our content discussion there. I'm just trying to keep the discussion organized, so we aren't having it in 3 places. — e. ripley\talk 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is sara Palin email hack article supposed to be deleted?

[edit]
You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Constitutionguard. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on writing Wiki articles.

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to mention a few things I noticed in your article Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case. First of all, please don't sign your text on the article's main page, your signature with four tildes is only meant for talk pages and other discussions. And when citing weblinks as references, please don't put the full link inside the text because that looks rather nasty and confuses the reader. You can use a simple piece of code that creates proper footnotes, please see WP:References#Inline_citations and {{cite web}} for details. And last but not least, a single line break does not create new paragraphs in wikicode, to set a paragraph you need to insert a blank line. Regards, De728631 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating content forks

[edit]

You have now created two new articles that duplicate content at Sarah Palin email hack. Please stop doing this. There's utterly no reason to create yet another fork of this article, particularly since it seems to be practically a carbon copy of the other article that was AFD'ed. Both of them have been redirected to the Sarah Palin email hack article.

If you want to expand the Sarah Palin email hack article you're welcome to try, but you must stop creating forks of this subject instead of editing the main one. — e. ripley\talk 14:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES. Since you had some involvement with the DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — e. ripley\talk 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case. Since you had some involvement with the Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — e. ripley\talk 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Just so you know - you should never sign your name after making an edit to an article. This is because any given article can have dozens, or even hundreds, of individual editors, and if everyone signed, then the article would quickly become an illegible mess of signatures. Information as to who made which edit is automatically tracked, and is available in the article history.

Conversely, you should always sign the messages you leave on article discussion pages or on user talk pages.

No harm done - this is just so you know. DS (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Constitutionguard&oldid=407264910"