User talk:Jon Osterman

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule.

Your recent edits to Ilana Mercer, which I reverted twice, broke the named cites later in the article. Your edit history suggests that you are on some kind of a crusade against WND as a source. Probably not a good start, but you are still welcome and I hope you become a useful editor someday. Meanwhile, it is incumbent on you to edit in a way which does not break the articles you "improve." Please be more careful.

Speaking of 3RR (our 3RR rule, since you also edit here), you should read again. 3RR "allows" three reverts to an article in a 24 hour period. The fourth revert would trigger the bright line violation. You might get blocked for edit warring without crossing that line, but not 3RR. Celestra (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only edited twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010

That is not quite true, you edited three times, but only reverted twice. (BTW - Full colons (:) at the start of a line indent that line. Four tildes (~~~~) create a signature. Please use these to promote better understanding of who is saying what in a discussion.

WRT your comments about a "fictional" MoS, the MoS is not fictional, but I didn't mention the MoS. Do your efforts take precedence over keeping the article in an unbroken state? I think most reasonable editors would say that maintaining the article in an unbroken state would always take precedence over a dispute about sources. But there is no reason to debate the relative priority, just be more careful. If the reference you are removing is 'named', if it has the form "<ref name=XYZ>blah blah blah</ref>", search for other uses of the form "<ref name=XYZ />" and remove them as well.

WRT to asking for help with the "fight," this is not a battleground, please don't try to make it a battleground. You made an edit which removed a reference and left the article broken. I chose to revert your edit to fix the article and direct you to the appropriate forum to discuss the issue. Now that I know you are discussing the matter there and on the talk page, I will be happy with whatever consensus is finally reached, as you should be. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll sign from now on. Jon Osterman (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNetDaily RS/N

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]