User talk:Joker123192

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to George W. Bush appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Making the reference to the lower rating be qualifier of the reference of the higher rating gives the impression that lower rating is more important than the higher rating. SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George_W._Bush#One_of_the_lowest_approval_ratings_in_American_history The version he was restoring was the consensus version. RTRimmel (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit done by Joker123192. I have no objection to the consensus wording. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States Presidential approval rating, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Barack Obama, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. This is helpful advice, not criticism. SMP0328. (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please do not forget to provide an edit summary when editing a page. It is very important. Thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please take note this also includes the majority of Obama related articles too. -- Brothejr (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joker123192. If you edit the article without carefully checking which items have been discussed before, admins may not be very sympathetic to your case. (The Muslim rumor and the birth certificate rumor). We expect people to check if consensus is already against the items they want to add. I hope you have taken a look at this talk discussion and the others that apply to these rumors. In the diff of yours I provided above, it would have been better for you to ask for feedback for your idea on the Talk page before making an edit in such a controversial area. Not wanting to make you nervous or anything, but someone has already added your name at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Notifications to indicate that you've been made aware of the article probation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way to learn what was discussed before is to check Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. You'll notice that the citizenship item is already listed as one of the frequently-asked questions (Question #5). EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page George W. Bush has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to George W. Bush. 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. Thank you. Please don't add material to an article, without providing proper sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing. DKqwerty (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Rrstatue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rrstatue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours

Under the authority of Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation, I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeated edit warring on Barack Obama. Once your block expires, you are free to make useful contributions, but more edit-warring will lead to longer and longer blocks. If you want to appeal this, place {{unblock|reason}} on this page. A log of this block will be made at Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edits you made to the page George W. Bush have been reverted, as they appear to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edits were constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in this next edit 60 seconds later you removed sourced material about him being the 46th Governor of Texas. So, the deletion of sourced, relevant material combined with including the dates he was president, when it is already in the infobox right next to the paragraph, seems unconstructive. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Barack Obama. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Barack Obama, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. In particular, your edit drew a conclusion with "because of the stimulus package", and your edit regarding the end of the recession directly conflicted with what the source said, which was "A formal call on the end of the recession isn't expected for months." Frank | talk 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thread you began on User talk:Frank has been moved to Talk:Barack Obama

While I don't argue for restoration of the exact wording of your edits at that article, it seems the editor who reverted/recast your edits erred in the other direction. You're invited to participate in the discussion there. Thank you for catching and sourcing this economic development and bringing it to our attention at the article. Abrazame (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Barack Obama. 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. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Barack Obama. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The sources provided do not support your use of either "enacted" or "imposed". Please self-revert. In future, please discuss proposed changes on the talk page first. Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joker. In quickly scanning the wording of the sources I noted that they used action verbs like "moving forward with" which could be construed as meaning "enacting", though they also used the word "proposals", which could be a nascent stage of enacting or it could be referring to the official presentation of a full-fledged, detailed proposal. I'm not aware if this is the sort of thing that can be done with an executive order by the president or if it requires a legislative review period or a committee vote. If either is the case, there would presumably be some more recent news item noting that this has been done and/or acknowledging the progress of the review, a schedule for a vote, and/or effect of the order. I'm thrilled when constructive editing happens at the article that updates it with actual details of presidential actions, but we have to make sure that we're not simply presuming that three months later something as technical as a specific proposal to change a law has come to pass. Any edits that change the status or update the details of something also needs an updated reference for that change. I welcome your input with any sourcing you find that says it has. For the record, and I'd hope you double-check this if you go forward, for your own credibility at the article, but it seems the word "announced" would be acceptable in place of "proposed", as my quick scan of the two links still active found it to be an official announcement of a specific proposal that had already been drafted, and not merely a general proposal to draft something, and perhaps "announced" is more declarative than "proposed", while equally supported by the source? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Barack Obama. --White Trillium (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated changes to Barack Obama article without consensus

Please stop making repeated (10 September 2012, 13 September 2012, 19 September 2012) contentious and misleading major changes to the ledeclsection of the Barack Obama article without consensus and talk page discussion. Thank you. Newross (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Clinton article

Hi Joker. I reverted your good-faith changes on the Bill Clinton article. I did it because it deviated from NPOV in its characterization of DADT as an attempt by Clinton to limit gay rights; it's important here to remember that (at a statutory level) all DADT (which was supported by Barney Frank and many gay groups at the time) did was prevent gays from being asked about their sexual orientation/having it investigated, as opposed to a pre-Clinton policy which outright banned LGBT service and permitted such investigations. Also note that DADT was only agreed upon after Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve openly was doomed in the Congress.

The DOMA characterization is unfair too. I think Clinton's tacit approval of DOMA was an abomination, for which he'll rightfully pay a huge legacy price. But DOMA was passed by an (overwhelming) veto-proof majority, and Clinton did not lobby for it in Congress. So he hardly played an integral role in "implementing" a law that would have been law with or without his signature.

All in all, the guy's gay rights record is a matter of controversy, with both positives (dramatically increasing federal HIV/AIDS funding; being the first POTUs to appoint open gays to the administration; ending the security clearance ban; etc) and negatives (failing to veto DOMA and generally opposing marriage equality). Your characterization makes it seem like it was just entirely bad, and it's wrongheaded in that regard. Clinton's role in DADT and DOMA are discussed in a more nuanced and thorough fashion later in the article. I encourage you to look the article's discussion of DADT/DOMA over and see if you could improve anything. Steeletrap (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Barack Obama. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intro summarizes the article body. First introduce sourced material into the article details. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Manson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Once Upon a Time and Showtime (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) 11:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Joker123192. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Joker123192. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]