User talk:Ejmarten

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You have received these suggestions because we are currently running a study to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newly registered Wikipedia editors. Normally SuggestBot only makes suggestions for users who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We will not post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find a complete consent form with contact information on the SuggestBot Study page.

Stubs United States congressional delegations from Orleans Territory David E. Miller Jil Tracy Charles M. Thomson Nullifier Party Karen Hasara Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010 William Lee D. Ewing Christine Radogno Anti-Administration Party (United States) Robin Kelly Marlow H. Colvin Northern Illinois University College of Law Kenneth Dunkin Creeper virus Jehan Gordon List of United States Representatives from Kansas Vermont gubernatorial election, 2010 William D. Burns

Cleanup Bill Brady (Illinois politician) Phil Hare List of United States Representatives from Illinois Merge John C. Martin (Illinois Congressman) John Cunningham Martin Candle Add Sources Northwest Territory's At-large congressional district John Porter (Illinois politician) United States Senate elections, 2010 Wikify Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 Ben Reifel Social Analytics Expand List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers Ron Klein Barbara Flynn Currie

SuggestBot picks the articles you might be interested in based on the articles you've edited and using a number of different techniques: following links from them to other articles, matching articles based on their content, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedia users. It tries to recommend only articles that others have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, clean-up articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you choose to participate we encourage you to leave feedback on these suggestions, which you can most easily do here by editing your user talk page. We'll stop by later to read them.

Regards, Nettrom (talk), project researcher and SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Do me a favor and go to my user page. Do me a favor and think about it. The infobox allows up to 6 candidates. If there were more than 6, than we couldn't fit everyone. In several previous discussions, we have come to a consensus of 5%. It's fair and makes sense. In the 2 party system in the U.S. rarely do more than 2 candidates get more than 5% of the actual vote. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 IL Senate election

I'm waiting for you to respond on the talk page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Senate election

Your edits are clearly vandalism. As far as the 5% rule, I don't understand why your so determined to overrule consensus and precedent. You must work for Labno's campaign or something. Well, I have news for you, your candidate probably won't get 1% on election day, and if he does he'll be lucky. I have been editing hundreds of wikipedia election articles. I have nothing against Labno. In fact, I'm actually a libertarian (leaning) guy myself, but rules are rules. It's not my fault he was never included in a poll. But on election day, he most likely won't even get 5% of the vote, so what's the point of trying to get him on the infobox now? Rules are rules and previous consensus and precedent is that Labno doesn't have the requirements to get in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Being on the ballot doesn't constitute being in the infobox on wikipedia.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Hawaii's_1st_congressional_district_special_election,_2010#Vinny_Browne. I made several arguments in favor of including the minor candidate and obviously, it wasn't successful.--TM 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an endorsement, it's historically and legally accurate information.

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any inappropriate behavior on my part that lead to you posting this on my talk page. Having said that, could you please review the edit history of United_States_Senate_elections_in_Illinois,_2010 for neutrality and encyclopedic content. The edit war seems to be between me and User:Jerzeykydd I have cited authoritative sources for my edits with the intention of making the content of Wikipedia regarding the election encyclopedic and neutral. I recognize that my behavior about these edits are veering dangerously close to unacceptable, but my editing is being done in good faith. In this case, the authoritative sources are being ignored in favor of a consensus that no one can cite. Could you please recommend the best method of dispute resolution in this case? Previous attempts at communicating directly with User:Jerzeykydd have not been successful.

Thank you

Ejmarten (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to review edit history; I don't get involved by request into other people's disputes. Try WP:3O. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And for further clarification, the three-revert rule is there to stop sterile revert wars. It's a bright-line rule that doesn't care about who's right or wrong. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ejmarten. Thank you.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

image:Socktoad.jpg

Sockpuppetry case

Hello Ejmarten, there is a case currently open involving you. You have not yet commented on this case. Is there anything you would like to say about the case? If so, please post it on that case page. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being discussed at WP:AN3#User:Ejmarten reported by User:Jerzeykydd (Result: ). It seems that you may well be blocked from editing unless you can make a convincing response there. Your incorrect usage of the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries may attract sanctions in its own right. It would be a smart move if you would apologize for doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not entitled to make up your own personal definition of vandalism, as in this edit summary. "It is undoing edits that are factual without citing valid sources." Please read WP:VANDAL, and understand that content disputes do not fall under vandalism. If you persist in calling other editors vandals, contrary to our policy, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will refrain from further defamatory statements. I will give thought to an apology. I would like also to have editors refrain from labeling me as a vandal when I edit in good faith.Ejmarten (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fourth revert at United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This case was originally reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)