User talk:Dems on the move

Welcome!

Hello, Dems on the move, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Natalie 19:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Illegal Immigration

Well, the whole point of the march was to call for legalization and end the raids which have resulted in deportation. Obviously, immigrants who were already legal wouldn't need to be legalized or worry about being deported. Perspixx 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same as "pro-illegal immigration". It is a rally to allow more immigrants to be legally documented. Dems on the move 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is an immigrant and not legally documented, that someone is an illegal immigrant. How can such a rally be anything but pro-illegal-immigration? Frotz (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Schippers Sell Out.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Schippers Sell Out.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes not cast

Hello, I just wanted to know what “votes not cast” means. I see that you’ve been adding these numbers into result tables. I would also like to know your source. – Zntrip 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question can be found at this edit summary --Dems on the move (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR and Todd Palin

Dems, please be aware that you have technically violated WP:3RR by continuing to revert the change made regarding the DUI issue. I am willing to assume good faith here in your change but if you continue to revert changes to this article I will not hesitate to block you per policy. I have issued a generic warning on the talk page regarding these revisions, and as you made the third reversion as I was updating the talk page I am not going to call for a block at this time, but continued edit-warring by either yourself or User:Threeafterthree will result in a block per policy. Shereth 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I have NOT violated WP:3RR, because I only reverted 3 times. You need a 4th revert to be in violation. Dems on the move (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I miscounted. Still, you are treading a very fine line by pushing the 3RR to its limit. Revert-warring is not the solution to the problem. Shereth 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring talk page comments

If another user removes your commentary from their own user talk page, please do not restore it as you did here. Users are permitted to remove warnings and other material from their own talk pages at their discretion (see the talk page guidelines). Doing so is an indication that they have read the warning, but also an indication that they don't wish further discussion on the topic. Please don't restore comments to a user talk page after the user in question has removed them. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have removed the edit summary of undoing, because I also added to my previous comment. Dems on the move (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The next time you do this, you will be blocked. Edit-warring to force your comments back onto someone's talk page where they are clearly unwanted is inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I did not revert him. I added a comment, which referenced previous discussions. Dems on the move (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume that user is aware of the 3-revert rule and WP:NPA. If you feel they've violated either, then you can take it up with admins at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN3 for 3RR and WP:AN/I for serious attacks requiring urgent administrative intervention). Leaving further "warnings" and policy links on his talk page is guaranteed not to help the situation; furthermore, you keep adding more notes when he's clearly attempting to disengage with you. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment that the user has personally attacked me in this edit summary. Personal Attacks are unacceptable. I therefore request that you self revert this edit, and issue an appropriate warning on his talk page against personal attacks. It would also be nice if you apologized to me. Dems on the move (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon

I saw your reqeuest about one of the pages I created.

Pages for Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church, and Larry Kroon were all removed long before the five day period, in the middle of heated debate.

They all contained DIFFERENT well sourced information. All the information was from the thousands of news stories the four topics are featured in. Examples include -

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon includes information about speaking in toungues.

Ed Kalnins contained quotes information about his quotes that predate, and almost parallel statements, policy positions, and reasoning for them by governor Palins, and voted on by all 100 US Senators. Since Palin was only present, it is biased to include the informaation on Palin's article.

Wasilla Bible Church, included information about its invitations to controversial speakers, and what the speakers said there that generated press coverage. David Brickner's controversial quotes were cited and sourced.

Larry Kroon has been frequently quoted in the press, and invited David Brickner.

Sarah Palin's other pastors are NOT related in the news to public policy, as far as I know, or other news worthy events, although some of them are pretty bizarre, so are not notable as Wikipedia defines things.

I have only been on Wikipedia and was assaulted by tens or hundreds of people trying to delete the sites and keep the information off of Wikipedia, using various spurious arguments.

Wasilla Bible Church was deleted on the grounds that it contained the same content as Wasilla Assembly of God, which showed that the admin and deleter did not even read it or any arguments not to delete it.

Do you know anyone who will actually read the stuff and put this relevant information in Wikipedia? EricDiesel (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two churches the same? I suspect the one that was deleted is Palin's current church, and the one that is still being considered is her past church?

I wonder why the articles you created were deleted rather swiftly (normally the discussion is allowed to take place for 5 days), yet the article Dianne M. Keller, which was proposed for a speedy deletion, has not been formally put to an AfD. Dems on the move (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

choice of user name

transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipstick on a pig

Not sure about that username there, pal. 86.44.28.222 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's trying to say those people on the move. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so cavalier about moving comments that are not disruptive, and show no danger of becoming so. Overriding another editor's choice of where to comment is rude and can itself lead to confusion: it would be better to have more than your view of technicality or logic before doing it. 86.44.27.188 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 presidential debates article

You deleted the section I had written regarding McCain's withdrawal from the first debate while I was in the process of integrating it with content elsewhere on the page. I had described the forthcoming change on the talk page prior to doing that, to attempt to get a bit of time to integrate the two sections into a more complete summary. While there is much to be said for being bold, it is always a good idea to check the talk page, especially dealing with articles that are the subjects of current events. Huadpe (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Hope there are no hard feelings. Go ahead and merge whatever you think needs to be included (personally I don't think this needs to be a big paragraph because I think ultimately McCain will have to backtrack on this, and this will be just a minor footnote). I think you will agree with me, though, that it's not necessary to mention this information twice. Dems on the move (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caging (direct mail)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Caging (direct mail), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Caging list. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles May Day mêlée‎ deletions

Please stop deleting the word "illegal" from the top of Los Angeles May Day mêlée‎. Clear and compelling reasons have repeatedly been given as to why the rally was about illegal immigration and not immigration in general. What are your reasons for the deletion? Frotz (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protest was not to promote illegal immigration. It was to promote the rights of immigrants. --Dems on the move (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which immigrants? Frotz (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Dems on the move (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All? Then why was there so much attention paid to those not in the country legally? Exactly what are legal immigrants protesting? Frotz (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you had to be there. Dems on the move (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afd for joe the plumber

I think eddison was trying to modify his comment and got yours.[1]

JtP RFC

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licesning Mattnad (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muntadhar al-Zaidi

Hi. Thanks for your edits to this article. I would like to make a friendly suggestion. In the future, when you make edits like this, I would ask that you use the talk page first. The date you replaced was the correct one, and as a result of your edit, the wrong birth year was in the article from the time of your edit on 17:53, 19 December to when it was corrected days later, at 04:06, 21 December. I'm sure you mean well and only want what is best for the article, but changing dates is often problematic without discussion. If you had bothered to ask on the talk page before changing it, I would have pointed out to you that at the time of his kidnapping on November 16, 2007, some sources had reported that he was 28, making it less likely (not more as you claimed) that he was born between Dec. 15-31. I hope this criticism doesn't upset you, and that you continue editing as before, but instead, make an extra effort to discuss the topic with editors on the talk page before making changes to the article. Thank you, and have a good day. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorting the Prop8 protests list

I'm talking about this edit. The list was already sorted- by state. So your efforts simply caused it to be sorted by city, which seems a little bit confusing. At least when it is sorted by state, all the Iowa entries are next to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedder (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 December 2008

Since it was supposedly an international demonstration, sorting by city makes more sense. Dems on the move (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just wanted to make sure you knew it wasn't "unsorted". tedder (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Doyle (Canadian murderer)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Doyle (Canadian murderer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable per WP:ONEEVENT

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nuttah (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Vary Talk 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I would've filed a 3RR report but I think today [still Inauguration Day] we should give out free "get out of jail cards" and assume WP's strict policies again by tomorrow.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTUS

You are wrong at President of the United States, and nothing on the talk page says otherwise. There have been 44 administrations and 43 humans. The sentence uses the word "individuals", which refers to humans, not administrations. Put differently, Cleveland is one individual, not two. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what I was thinking, because I did intend to write that there were 43 individuals. Obviously, my edits were contrary to my intentions. Sorry. Dems on the move (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AKLG

You know, when I saw this edit, I thought, "of course". But I was very surprised to see that, as currently written, Alaska is the only relationship described this way, and that only because of your edit.

But this can't be right. In fact, I believe that this is the most common arrangement (run separate in the primary, together in the general) It sure would be nice to correct the other state's entries, but I don't know any quick way to find out how each state does it. Of course, since you've already started the good work, might you be persuaded to finish it? Un school 08:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, Alaska is the only state that has this arrangement. Obviously, all 11 states in the section List of current United States lieutenant governors#States with differing party membership at the executive level do not have this type of an arrangement. Dems on the move (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Eric Cantor

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eric Cantor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You have reverted this article three times today. You can be blocked if you continue. Please wait to get consensus on the Talk page for any controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sánchez

Re this, I don't understand your reference in your edit summary to "conversations with her doctor"? She broke this news herself, in her interview with Patt Morrison. It became a subject of considerable public attention--and, I would note, virtually all of that attention was (deservedly) positive. The UPI article you are citing says exactly this: "Sanchez, 40, is the eighth member of Congress to have a baby while in office. Her pregnancy attracted an unusual amount of attention because Sanchez, who had been married and divorced, was the first to be openly pregnant out of wedlock."[2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the information is public. The question is: is it biographical? In my opinion, unless she starts talking about how she has wanted a child her entire life and because she started to hear the biological clock ticking she decided to get pregnant, I dont think such a conversation (which admittedly is in the public domain) belongs in her biography.

Remember, the idea is to summarize her life, not quote every single sentence that ever crossed her lips. Therefore, the quote has to be put into some context (which I gave the example that she has wanted to be a mother her entire life).

I hope you'll agree.

Dems on the move (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the ~~sensation~~ hype about her being an unwed mother became moot when she married the baby's father. The fact that she conceived the baby prior to marriage is very obvious from the timeline, and in my opinion, need not be explicitly stated.

Dems on the move (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said: ". . . unless she starts talking about how she has wanted a child her entire life and because she started to hear the biological clock ticking she decided to get pregnant . . ." That is, pretty much exactly, what Sánchez told Patt Morrison last year:

Sanchez is 39 and divorced, and early this year, her doctor told her that "if your intention is to become a mother, I wouldn't put it off." So she and Sullivan didn't. They haven't yet set a wedding date. As he told me, "We have the rest of our lives to get engaged and married -- we don't have the rest of our lives" for Sanchez to become pregnant. . . . Sanchez's mother, Maria -- a "pretty traditional Latin woman," says her daughter -- had just about given up on Sanchez having a child. Now Maria is "over the moon."[3]

As Morrison pointed out, the Congresswoman became a positive role model and part of a sea change that we've seen in which nontraditional paradigms of child rearing have gained increasing acceptance. (Morrison also connected this to the hit film Juno and how the Republicans managed to muster compassion and support for Bristol Palin.) I do think this is a significant aspect of Sánchez's biography, and a positive one, not something to be embarassed about or hidden away.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the quote,

She wanted a baby
Doc said "don't wait, get to work"
So she and the baby's father got to work on it
Mom (baby's grandma) is happy because she thought she would never see a baby from Linda -- an indication that Linda's desire to be a mother was NOT a lifelong desire.

It does not sound to me as if she has been trying to conceive for 20 years before she was finally succesful, which is why I don't see why it would be biographical. Dems on the move (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Tiller - "pro-homicide"

Hi

I've just reverted you at George Tiller, and figured you deserved the courtesy of an explanation.

Labelling the two sides as "pro-homicide" and "anti-homicide" is hugely partisan, particularly as most if not all of the anti-choice groups do seem to be speaking out against the killing. I'd personally prefer that the two sections are combined and shortened, but whatever approach is used we do need to avoid emotive phrases like "pro-homicide" (or "anti-choice", for that matter - but I'd only use that on a talk page!)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cantor

While I'll agree about source exists in the references list, my issue is with the quoting of "a complete and total joke", the highlighting of this gives a generally harsh tone and a little undue weight. Showtime2009 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what is wrong with quoting the phrase "a complete and total joke". It is quoted in complete and full context and appropriate for the paragraph. I don't see how it can be undue weight given that it describes what the McCain source called the rumors of Cantor being on the short list to be McCain's VP. Dems on the move (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Forman

Apologies - it looked as though you were trying different combos in the assumption that there was an article about the guy, so I thought I'd help out. I didn't realise you were just about to launch the article. My bad.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:First Lt. Daniel Choi.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:First Lt. Daniel Choi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Hi there, I hate to hassle you, but your name may get you in trouble as being POV according to our User name policy. It could mean Democrats are moving or They are moving. Just a heads up. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston

I see no sign of a consensus, but I'm not going to edit war over it with you. I do think it violates WP:UNDUE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that (or rather if) WP:UNDUE applies, but I agree that the sentence "Johnston dropped out of high school" stuck out like a sore thumb. I have therefore copied verbatim from the reference (with quotes, of course). Dems on the move (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR notice, please come to the talkpage

You appear to be edit warring at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. Please come to the article talkpage to discuss your preferred change rather than continuously reverting to it. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to double check your counting. I only count 2. Dems on the move (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all Barack Obama related article are on article probation, and one can be blocked for edit-warring or disruptive behavior even if it is falls short of a 3RR breach. Most of your edits on the page have been productive in my view, but you have possibly violated 3RR at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and come very close to breaching it at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. So I too would advice you to be careful not to edit-war and use the talk page instead. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the WP:AN3 report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dems_on_the_move_reported_by_guyzero_.7C_talk_.28Result:_.29. thank you, --guyzero | talk 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

Boogie, as in playing boogie music. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the appropriate change for people who are dense like me. Dems on the move (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Could you please be more careful in editing the article to make sure that you don't introduce factual errors as you did in this edit and again here ? In particular, when an edit of yours is reverted you should either take the issue to the talk page or or at least really make sure that you are in the right. I am pointing this out since this is the second instance you have chosen to edit-war at the article, instead of simply admitting and correcting your errors (previous instance discussed here). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look -- I may have made a minor error (elementary school vs. high school), but there was no reason to revert my entire edit. You could have made the correction yourself, rather than revert the entire edit. Since you did not point out what exactly was the error, I assumed that you thought the entire sentence was erroneous, which it wasn't, so I reverted your revision. Had you corrected "high school" to "elementary school", I would have thanked you. Since you reverted without explaining your revision, other than to say it was factually incorrect, I reverted you. It's that simple. Dems on the move (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I assumed that you thought the entire sentence was erroneous" Please do not assume; that has led to you making (and repeating) errors twice already. Check the edit and source instead, and discuss if you are still in doubt. I have already reminded you about this article being on article probation; continued tendentious editing is likely to result in blocks, and frankly, I am not looking for that since many of your edits are indeed useful. If you are only a bit more careful and desist from edit-warring, you can avoid such problems in the future. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do the best that I can. Ideally I would never make a single error. But because I am made of flesh and blood, I sometimes err, as I'm sure you do too. Therefore, if you see an edit (either mine or someone else's) that is mostly correct but has some minor flaw, please do not revert the entire edit -- just correct the minor flaw. That would save everybody a lot of grief. Thanks. Dems on the move (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blaming you for the original errors in either instances - I realize that neither times were the mistakes malevolent, and I am sure I make my own share of unintentional errors. However, repeating the errors after you have been reverted (by experienced editors, not fly-by vandals), is disruptive and absolutely avoidable; there is really no excuse for the repetition. Again, next time you are reverted, recheck your edit to make absolutely sure that you are right, and if you have even a scintilla of doubt, use the talk page to discuss the issue (see WP:BRD). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read your mind, especially since I dont know you. The best thing is to be clear, and explain where you think the error is -- better yet, just correct the error. Edit warring is not a good idea. Dems on the move (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try one last time: you don't have to assume, guess, speculated or read minds. Just use the talk page if you don't understand the reason for reversion, instead of edit-warring to add factually incorrect information in a BLP article already under probation. But I am repeating myself and don't know how I can be clearer; if you have some specific doubt about what I said just ask. In any case I hope you won't repeat such conduct a third time on the page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try this only one more time. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a game of gotcha. If you see a minor error, just fix it. Do not revert the entire contribution.

We are wasting way too much time for such a small error (whether Barack Obama used the name Barry Soetoro in high school or elementary school). The point is that prior to my edit, there was no explanation as to who was the defendant in the lawsuit. I made an attempt to explain who the defendant was, which is why I used the edit summary Explain who is Soetoro. All you had to do was to modify high school to elementary school. There was absolutely no justification to revert my edit.

Telling me that I need to be "more careful" does not do a bit of good. As I have already explained, I am as careful as I can be, but I do make mistakes.

This conversation is pointless given that the error has already been fixed. I did not allow my feelings to get hurt because you reverted me, so please do not allow your feelings to get hurt because I reverted you back. That's part of the facts of life of editing on Wikipedia. Dems on the move (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

Hello, Dems on the move. You have new messages at Ravensfire2002's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR notice

You appear to be edit warring at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. Please come to the article talkpage to discuss your preferred change rather than continuously reverting to it. At this point, you are at 3 reverts [4], [5], [6]. There is NO consensus at the talk page - it's been you and I on opposite sides thus far. Please do not make a further revert until we have this settled on the talk page. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] is not a revert, but an initial edit. The discussion at the talk page appeared to have run its course. Dems on the move (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Your interpretation is, in my mind, incorrect. Likewise, my interpretation is, in your mind, incorrect. That's not resolved or run its course - that's an impass. I'm hoping others will comment on it. Meanwhile, we'll apparently continue this edit war. Such fun times. Really. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Manual of Style

Hi, Dems on the move. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Guidance for bulleted lists about the usage of bullets in articles such as Write-in candidate. Please feel free to join the discussion and add your comments; I am interested to hear what you have to say. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nader

All right, I'm not going to remove the passage again. However, I've stated my position on the article Talk page. You still haven't provided a source that backs up what you've written. You need to explicitly write that the Democrats took this position, which is what the source backs up, or find a source saying the general public took this position, or you have to remove the passage. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E

Please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#WP:BLP1E. Thanks. Lara 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^This would be an objection. When your edits are reverted, consider it objections being raised and check the talk page, thanks. Lara 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our 3 revert rule WP:3RR. In particular see where it says "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than edit war themselves, whether or not 3RR has been breached." Your interest in improving policy is welcome, but edit warring on policy pages, such as WP:BLP is not acceptable. Your efforts should be confined to the talk page until a consensus emerges.--agr (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to your change to WP:BLP

Read Jenna's first comment: "For example one, John Doe being a spokesman for PETA isn't notable unless it's gotten significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. For example two, this is precisely what BLP1E was created for. Regardless of how long this murder remained in the media, it's the event that is notable, not the murderer." These are clearly issues with the substance of your changes, not merely the amount of discussion that preceded them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello, Dems on the move. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dems on the move (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not violated 3RR (only 2 reverts) #Edit warring editor had the exact same number of reverts and did not get blocked #Edit warring editor has been dealing with me in bad faith #Administrator failed to even give me a courtesy blocking notice on my talk page

Decline reason:

Regardless of the actual number of reverts, you've been edit-warring. WP:3RR is a bright line, but editors are expected to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the policy, and edit-warring - particularly when there's been a history of it - will lead to blocks even when 3RR has not been crossed. You've been warned plenty of times about this, as your talkpage demonstrates. Other editors' actions have no bearing on your block; your unblock request must address your own behaviour. See the link at the bottom of this notice for more information. EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dems on the move (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recognize that it's all about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. I admit that I have pushed things to the limit in the past, but have never crossed the line. I view pushing things to the limit as part of WP:BOLD. Regarding this particular dispute, the warring editor and I had, and still have, a disagreement regarding modifications of the closing templates on closed AfD pages. I have attempted to talk to him but it was to no avail. The warring editor asked for a third opinion, he did not ask for a block. Instead of providing a 3rd opinion, the reviewing admin blocked me. We still do not have a 3rd opinion, and I would have gone along with whatever the 3rd opinion would have been, and would have stopped the edit war on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination).
UPDATE: For what it's worth, a 3rd opinion was given at the AN/I by a user who believes my additions were useful

Decline reason:

I view pushing things to the limit as part of WP:BOLD. Good for you, but your view is going to get you consistently blocked and eventually banned for (among other things), edit warring, disruption, and tendentious editing. You might want to reconsider your stance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock on hold|1=ArnoldReinhold|2=Blocking adming has agreed to reduce the block time to 3 hours, and I've already been blocked for 4.5 hours|3=J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)}} I think he meant that he will reduce the remainder of your block to another 3 hours, not that your total block would be 3 hours. I'll ask him. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with unblocking at this point, but I hope the user gets the message that pushing limits is not the way to get things accomplished on Wikipedia. --agr (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I can't find any autoblocks. See if you can edit the sandbox.

Request handled by: J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I don't show you blocked at this time. Let me know if you still think you are blocked.--agr (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked due to an auto-block.

“

16:35, 3 August 2009, ArnoldReinhold (talk | contribs) blocked #1534243 (expires on 4 August 2009 at 16:35, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Dems on the move". The reason given for Dems on the move's block is: "Edit warring: Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-r)

”

You must have really gotten ticked off at me.

I am only the fourth person to have been blocked by you in year and half you've been an administrator
Nobody sought my blocking
The other person whom I was edit warring with was being uncivil towards me
The edit war was not even in the main space
By concensus it is agreed that my edits were not harmful
I did not violated 3RR, and had an equal number of reverts as the other warring party.

Very disappointing. Dems on the move (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what to tell you, but I still get the auto-blocked message (not a blocked message). Dems on the move (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still blocked? Help is on the way. :) *cough* *cough* Like just as soon as the original block expires. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account

I see in my watchlist that this user is indefinitely blocked as a compromised account? Is some explanation going to be put up? What does that mean? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing and posted this question at the blocking admins' talk page and notified the discussion at the admin noticeboard. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This talk-page is now unlocked, so Dems should be able to respond to their latest block. As a procedural matter I've left the other block settings in place until we hear from the blocking admin. EyeSerene^talk 09:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Account now provisionally unblocked per consensus at the above ANI thread. There should be no remaining autoblocks in place, but please let us know if you run into problems. EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: account was re-blocked after explanation of "compromised account" at ANI. (The edit on user's ~~talk~~ page has been deleted and oversighted.) Frank | talk 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with reblock. EyeSerene^talk 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see about this

Since no one else beat me to it, I've changed the password for this account. If you, Dems, are able to register a second account, get in touch with me, and convince me that you're you, I will be willing to transfer control back to you and I will seek immediate release of any block justified by the current security breach. I'm sorry to see that things have gotten so tense, here, but I'd rather not create any situation where Wikipedia loses a longtime contributor for what seem to me to be bad reasons.

Bear in mind that I am a checkuser, and that those tools will be my primary means of confirming your identity. I recommend getting in touch with me from the same machine(s) you've recently been editing from, if you can. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who issued the original block, I endorse your action and I hope Dems will take you up on it. Please come back!--agr (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bristol Palin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Snowzilla

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Snowzilla. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowzilla. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Boogie Man Promotional Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boogie Man Promotional Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Objectivist Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Objectivist Party 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/Objectivist Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]