User talk:Mpublius

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! The following materials may be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

"Neutral Point of View": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute (maintenance process, including the rule prohibiting drive-by tagging)

"Verifiability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)

"No Original Research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution (summary of Verifiability and No Original Research)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ATT/FAQ (proposed policy, guideline or process)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette (behavioral guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources (guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories (content guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines (guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war (editing guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing (behavioral guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links (guideline)

Yours, Famspear 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed warring on Tom Cryer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tom Cryer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Famspear 16:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mpublius: Your apparent violation of the 3 revert rule in the article Tom Cryer has been reported at:

[1]

Yours, Famspear 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 18 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at TomCryer. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring on Tom Cryer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tom Cryer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Yours, Famspear 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still more edit warring on Tom Cryer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tom Cryer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Yours, Famspear 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your apparent violation of the 3RR rule has been reported at:

[2]

Yours, Famspear 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketboom

See comments at Talk:Andrew Baron#RFC for NPOV. And mind those reverts :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanr (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer

I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion--Phoenix 15 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

More edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration request

Short answer to your post on my page: "Yes". I'm not an arbitrator, but unless someone has been editing disruptively I don't expect ARBCOM will accept this case.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB Case Tax Protester

Hello!

I'm Aeon and I will be your Mediation Cabalist for your issue. I'm currently reviewing all statements, difs and said article and will be able to start the mediation soon. All involved parties if you could please leave quick note (no need to make any further statements until I'm ready to begin) saying if you are still willing to undergo mediation. Please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal cannot and will not enforce the ultimate consensus that will hopefully be gained from this and it will be up to the involved parties to uphold the agreement. Also during the mediation all parties will remain civil (Per WP:CIVIL) and will treat each other with respect. Thank you Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User confusion

Mpublius, you have me confused with someone else. I have never edited or participated in any discussion with regard to Elihu Root. Perhaps your thinking of editor Mateo SA. Morphh ^(talk) 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - it was Mateo SA. Mpublius 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax cases

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Income tax cases, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Income tax cases. Eastlaw (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ignacio Ramírez

A tag has been placed on Ignacio Ramírez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 02:42, 13 March 2008 (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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]