User talk:Dumpster muffin

Berkeley oak grove article

Hello... regarding your contribution to the article Berkeley oak grove controversy, the text was removed because the individuals themselves are not notable or necessary. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images on your talk page

I have had to remove the images as they severely compromise the functionality of the page. Editors have to be able to access your talk page in order to leave you messages; they cannot do so if it is bogged down with multiple copies of an extremely large file. There is also a possibility that the Commons licence for the image does not permit its use outside of articles; however, I will check on that and let you know. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this matter. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that - while deletion is discouraged - you are free to remove messages from your talk page once you have read them. However, the image in the form you are presenting it is not acceptable, and must be removed. Please ask if you would like some advice on appropriate ways to present the image. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Berkeley_oak_grove_controversy

There's a proposal to rename Berkeley oak grove controversy to Berkeley Memorial Stadium oak grove controversy so that the NPOV tag can be removed from the top of the article. I'm still looking for a reliable source for the grove itself having been dedicated in memory of WWI veterans, and if I find one (or somebody else does) then the article title could be shortened to remove the "stadium" portion, but for the moment the current proposal seems like a good compromise. I know you're busy, but would you mind contributing to the discussion on the talk page for that article so that we can get this resolved and get that unsightly tag removed? The article is shaping up nicely and I would even go so far as to recommend it for "good article" status, which could conceivably get it displayed on the homepage of wikipedia — but a few remaining issues (like the NPOV tag) would need to be settled first. Thanks! --Sapphic (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest costs

The cited sources explicitly say that the $367K figure is the university and the $300K figure is the police department. Your changes go against cited sources, which means you are contradicting Wikipedia policy: content must agree with the cited sources. Your changes also don't even make sense if you think about the dates: if it were to be $367K for the police as of November 2007 (source you kept), how could it be $300K for the police as of April 2008 (source you deleted)? It's cited, it's relevant, it's not up to you to remove it or change the meaning to contradict the cites that exist. Changing content to remove citations and/or to contradict cited sources is vandalism and you will eventually be blocked from editing if you persist. DMacks (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and engage in disruptive practices, , as you are doing to Berkeley oak grove controversy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

I'm sorry, but that message isn't helpful. Additionally, please explain your rationale at the RfB. Enigma ^message 05:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of messages

If you continually remove legitimate messages without reading or responding to them, you may be brought to WP:ANI. This is not acceptable behavior. Enigma ^message 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page header

It is nonsense: Wikipedia editors are expected to maintain open channels of communication with their fellow editors, that concerns about their editing, such as those that you have deleted from your talk page, may be addressed. If you continue to edit disruptively and unresponsively, you will be blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLANKING (part of userpage guidelines), "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." If you remove it, it is assumed that you have read it regardless of your statements to the contrary, and you are considered to have been informed of its content. If you don't have time even to read another's concern about your editorial habits, how do you have time to edit at all? DMacks (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive votes on RfAs and RfBs

Please respond to the concerns. If you refuse to do even this courtesy, I will indent your !votes per WP:BOLD. Enigma ^message 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing "without reading" messages here

Hey, I just wanted to let you know... It is assumed, that when you remove an item from your userpage, you have read it. If you really are removing things sight unseen, this could cause you problems, as with the message above, or, other such warnings. Additionally, this is a collaborative project, and it really is unhelpful to simply blow off other contributors in this manner. SQL ^{Query me!} 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]