User talk:Lacarids

Welcome!

Hello, Lacarids, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

February 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 Muhammad 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my edits that User talk:Ohnoitsjamie called "non-neutral" are now part of the article, although another editor deserves the credit. Specifically, I edited the above article to reflect the age of Aisha (one of Mohammed's wives). Such information is apparently neutral now, and another wikipedia editor (or editors) now agree with the edits that I was trying to make before. I'm not sure why or when the consensus changed. --Lacarids (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sharia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Muhammad. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that what Jarkeld called "original resource" was cited in the listed reference. Additionally, what he considered NPOV is now a part of the article, thanks to other editors. The "vandalism" was him reverting my edits and vice versa. In other words, if I was "vandalizing" the article, so was he. --Lacarids (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad. 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. Nableezy (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that what Jarkeld called "original resource" was cited in the listed reference. Additionally, what he considered NPOV is now a part of the article, thanks to other editors. The "vandalism" was him reverting my edits and vice versa. In other words, if I was "vandalizing" the article, so was he. --Lacarids (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see WP:TERRORIST. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my edits that almost got me banned were to note in the intro that the FARC is a terrorist organization. O Fenian was about to ban me for calling them that, but now it's in the first sentence of the article (and has been for a long time). --Lacarids (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Falkland Islands, you may be blocked from editing. NOTE: I'm willing to overlook your mistake once but twice? While continuing the same topic and attacking others won't win you friends, take heed because you need to take a long hard look at yourself again before you speak. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. I initially opened an WP:SPI on this topic. I believe I was wrong, after reading Lacardis' responses there. I apologize to all concerned. I was acting in good faith, and now do not believe Lacardis was socking. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see some similarities between Lacarids and Grundle, so I ran a CheckUser to clarify whether there was a link. However, my check revealed that he is probably unrelated. AGK [•] 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacarids, I'm sorry for the confusion that resulted from my archive at the talk page of Chavez; because you've been editing a long time, I assumed you were aware of and followed the logic of archiving a discussion that had been derailed by a sock, so a fresh start would be possible. I see from your subsequent posts that you now understand that "Criticism" sections are discouraged, and that neutrality is achieved by giving all views due weight according to reliable sources. Reading the talk page archives at Hugo Chavez will help bring you up to date on the long-standing POV in that article; unfortunately, editors like Grundle make it difficult to move forward. Again, I apologize for my part in the confusion and I hope the CU clearance turns out to be viewed as the silver lining of a bad situation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Falkland Islands". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Falkland Islands, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)