User talk:Walkersam

Crystal Castles

You're very welcome. Just to be clear, editwarring doesn't only apply to situations where discussion about the changes has resulted in a stalemate — it can also apply to situations where a user is persistently reinserting disputed content while refusing to participate in or acknowledge any discussion about it at all. Certainly, the sweet spot that we like to see is conflicting users coming to an agreement about the disputed material one way or the other or somewhere in the middle, but that process can obviously fail, with editwarring taking place, at both ends of the spectrum. And at any rate, a stalemate over disputed changes would normally get escalated to an WP:RFC for outside input — so using temporary page protection to force the uncommunicative user into a discussion is actually quite a common response. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Heartland Alliance

Hello, Walkersam,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Heartland Alliance should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland Alliance .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brainerd, Minnesota. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please follow BRD when you have had a good faith addition reverted. My good faith removal of your addition is completely appropriate and per policy, as was your initial edit. You subsequent edit is not. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is how disputed content is decided. Please do not replace your content prior to gaining consesus on how or if to cover this at Talk:Brainerd, Minnesota. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Citation needed' tags not needed on lead sections

Hi, please note that the lead section is a summary made from the cited materials in the body of an article. As such, it does not need further citations. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you referring to? Walkersam (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Walkersam (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parental dividend - bias tag

Hi, I'm the editor that created the parental dividend page. I noticed your recent placement of a bias tag. Could you please elaborate? What edits would you suggest? Thanks! Global Microscope (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an article about an untested economic proposal which includes nothing critical of the idea whatsoever, relies mostly on primary sources, and references contentious claims from those primary sources such as that the SSI system imposes "the burden of paying for retirement twice." Walkersam (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]