User talk:Mserard313

Welcome!

Hello, Mserard313, 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 discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Rockero (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Stop your vandalism on the Socialist Party USA page, now. --TIAYN (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue, you will be blocked from wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edits

You are the one trying to vandalize this page, bud. Your revisions are extensively inaccurate, highly opinionated, and sloppily written. I'm reverting it back to the longstanding content of this page, prior to your efforts to carelessly re-write it.

My one has been certified WP:GA-status, your one has been certified stub.. Your one is only referenced by one-party sources, which is something that violates WP:RS... My one is referenced by third party sources, which your one is not. My one is supported by the wikipedia guidelines, your one is not on the other hand. So if you keep on reverting you will get blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im willing to contact an administrator. --TIAYN (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please do so that s/he can stop your flagrant vandalism of this page!

When can my edits on that page be categorised as vandalism? Everything is properly sourced, everything follows the wikipedia guidelines, the earlier version doesn't. --TIAYN (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Erard (see Talk:Matt Erard),

-You are incessantly attempting to replace a longstanding and well-cited collaboratively written article by many Wikipedians with a highly opinionated, highly inaccurate, and largely ungrammatical personal rant. If you have objections to any of the assertions made in this article, then follow the standard procedures to note your objections to the citations (or lack thereof). Attempting to personally re-write the entire article as an ill-informed personal opinion piece, however, is blatant vandalism. If you will not stop, then I strongly hope an administrator will intervene. Mserard313 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313[reply]

The new article was also collaboratively written, thats the only reason why it was able to be written into a WP:GA. I don't have any personal opinions of the Socialist Party USA, the main reason being that i'm a European and know nothing about them, except what the sources tell me. I only wrote the article to learn about them. I am following the standard procedure, you are not on the otherhand. To actually think that i would vandalize the SPUSA-page really is enoying.

Im going to tell you this one more time, you can't reference an with first-published sources, which the other one did. The new one isn't. If its something that is inaccurate, then instead of arguing find a third-published source which includes missing information. Its probably easier for you to find, seeing that you live in the US. --TIAYN (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm for a peaceful solution to this, but please start discussing instead of fighting, okay?. --TIAYN (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That's fine. It should start with you raising your objections to the existing article, rather than attempting to push through its whole-scale replacement with your own. Mserard313 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313[reply]

Okay, if you want to keep on edit warring and writing about yourself fine, i'll revert every single vandalizing edit you make to the SPUSA page. When and if you ever want to talk, please contact me. --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- I have not at any point attempted to write about myself. In fact I've consistently attempted to remove the quasi-inaccurate line regarding me personally (just as I've expressed support for deleting the Wikipedia page about me for lack of notability, thus far to no avail). I will keep on reversing your vandalism until an admin is able to address the situation (and hopefully suspend your editing privileges until you're willing to begin complying with Wikipedia editing policies). Mserard313 (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313[reply]

I'm talking about your edits on the SPUSA page were you mentioned that you ran for office in 2008. The article is on the other hand fine. What in my edits can be categorised as vandalism, im the one who is actually trying to stop this arguement and discuss. You don't want, i want to fix the problems with the new page, yes i do. But my one follows wikipedia procedues the old one don't. Either way, my one is gotta stay since it follows WP guidelines, which your one don't. Please stop edit warring. --TIAYN (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Socialist Party USA article. --TIAYN (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- I did not add the part regarding my own run for office and did not initially notice that it was in the content that I reverted the article to. I have persistently attempted to delete that line in consideration of the fact that, unlike the other candidates mentioned I appeared on the Green Party ballot line (while campaigning as an SP candidate) and because there was a U.S. Taxpayers party who received a higher vote percentage in a two-candidate race for another State House district. You are the one who is forcing an edit war, which I have now filed a request to get admin assistance regarding. See Wikipedia Editing Policy Mserard313 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:Good Article and Wikipedia:Editing policy. I'm going to say it again, if its something missing in the article find a third-published source to verify it, as i have done. And please stop accusing me of writing the article alone, see the articel history, i got much help. You are the first editor to point out that it is something wrong with the article, which is fine, but than you fixed instead of reverting back when the article was in horrible shape. Now it is in good shape, which is proven by that is a certified Good Article. Tell me what is wrong, what information is missing, any inaccurate information. If there are any we can try to find references for these facts together from third published sources. --TIAYN (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

I'm posting this on both of your pages, both of you are edit warring to ridiculous extremes on the Socialist Party USA article. I'm sure you both think you're right, but you're both going to wind up blocked if you don't stop immediately and start using the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep the article as it is (seeing that it is a GA-article), until we are finished discussing.. okay? --TIAYN (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you proved that you didn't want to collaborate with me or discuss the future of the article. Stop claiming i don't want to collaborate with you, when you never collaborate with me. --TIAYN (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the part you were trying to remove in the ideology section. I've started the sentence now with; "According to The New York Times, the party's platform" etc. etc. etc. Is that better?`--TIAYN (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Report Posted

With regrets, as both of you ignored the warnings of edit warring, I've reported you to the 3RR & Edit Warring Board. You can find that discussion here [1]. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And seeing that we will be blocked for a very long time if i don't stop, let's stop editing the article before we come up with a solution.. What do you say? --TIAYN (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Socialist Party USA. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 11:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the page and do whatever you want with it, its fine. But stop using first-published sources (the party's website for an example). Seeing that you probably know a hell of a lot more about this party than me, please instead of doing the same mistake over and over again, try to find third-publish sources to back up your claim. Please, seriously, i don't want to argue with you. --TIAYN (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

please see: | Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Chegitz (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So, given the above, can the two of you collaborate on something that is both accurate and GA? Chegitz (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my own edits (vandalism), to your version.... I've fixed some problems, but you need to fix som issues with the present article, you have left sentences unreferenced, either remove them or reference them, okay?

Sorry for my previous behavior. --TIAYN (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF you don't fix the citation problems, i have some of what you have written. --TIAYN (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the un-referenced information left on the SPUSA-page, i've told you should fix it but you havn't responded. It's removed, you can re-add it when you find sources for it. --TIAYN (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]