{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 21:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Your addition to
Malcolm Wallop has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. This is your final warning. You will once again be indef-blocked if there's any further copyright violations, and it's highly unlikely you will be unblocked a second time. —
Diannaa (
talk) 04:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding these edits [1] [2] [3] (and others): as you have repeatedly been cautioned: (1) do not edit war, particularly to insert disputed POV material into political campaign articles, (2) do not make accusations of bad faith against other editors, and (3) use the talk page to discuss disputed content changes to articles. I left you two cautions about it earlier this month, [4] and your editing behavior is under discussion by other editors as well in various places. It's your choice whether to abide by Wikipedia's editing policies; your refusal appears to be deliberate and longstanding, hence this courtesy notice. I, or another, may or may not revert you here, but whether here or anywhere else, yet another edit like these and I may take this to the appropriate administrative forum without further advance notice. - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you,
Max. I have other unavoidable (non-Wikipedia related) commitments today and tonight, but will offer my response first thing in the morning tomorrow (December 3) if you will be kind enough to grant me until then to comment, before taking any action in this matter.
I appreciate your consideration. ---
Professor JR (
talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Professor JR, unfortunately the discussion in the recent ANI thread leads to a clear conclusion: a consensus among editors is that you be topic banned from Hilary Clinton-related articles. Please see these diffs for my closing statement. See WP:UNBAN for possible appeals. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 22:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Professor JR, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa ( talk) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melissa Newman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Town & Country ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tortoiseshell cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Particoloured ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again; this time there is a much more aggressive posture aimed at entirely shutting down my edits. Please note the "Result" suggestion at the bottom of the discussion.Your comment regarding this banning attempt would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nocturnalnow Ban Attempt Nocturnalnow ( talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In the future, please do not italicize quotes, it makes them more difficult to read. I've undone your italics in the above article, but have retained your other changes. Best, BMK ( talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is
Donald J. Mitchell. The discussion is about the topic
Topic. Thank you. —
—Мандичка
YO 😜 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The claims about Abedin represent a tiny minority fringe POV, which has been widely rejected, condemned and described as a conspiracy theory by sources ranging from The Washington Post to John McCain. As per WP:NPOV, we must give the clear and overwhelming majority viewpoint — that the claims are unfounded, politically motivated and fundamentally unfair — due prominence, and this is of particular import given that the article subject is a living person. Discussing them without clearly labeling them as a widely-discredited fringe theory advanced only by a small group of right-wing partisans gives the claims undue weight, which is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I was thinking of trying to improve the Hillary Clinton article, and I am wondering if you have any advice about that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The claims about Abedin are a fringe theory, and will be dealt with as such. They are widely repudiated and we will treat them exactly as mainstream sources have treated them — unfounded conspiracy theories that unfairly smear a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 11:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You may wish to make a statement here Nocturnalnow ( talk) 12:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You are making multiple edits that reverts previous material. I don't want to report this to avoid drama, but please be aware of the issue as if you continue, I will have no choice but report it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ProfessorJR -- since we went round a bit on Melania Trump a few months back and, much to your credit, you helped change my mind a bit on WP:BLP issues related to candidates' spouses (and ex's), I was curious why you switched Barron Trump from its former redirect to Trump's "Personal Life" to its own independent article. To my mind, Barron is obviously not independently notable, but I'm wondering what new thoughts you may have. Hope all's well with you Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
"Bullying reverts" [9]?! Your judgment is really in question. That's pretty off-base and even offensive. (There was a revert war, yes. I reverted LESS, and included sensible editsum rationales, as opposed to my "opponent". I also responded to nasty arguments on the article Talk, w/o responding in kind. I also opened an RfC, when that was reasonable & appropriate to do.) Perhaps you s/ bring to bear a bit more sensitivity in your evaluations!? You s/ also review WP:TPG, because you restored posts incompatible w/ article Talk page guideline specified there. (And if you knew it was contrary to guideline when you restorred it, then there's a valid complaint about your own behavior, disruption to prove a point.) Good luck on the Wikipedia. IHTS ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You're now at the limit of 3RR for Marco Rubio. Best to take a breather. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I see you're edit warring over some material you're proposing to add to the Hillary Clinton email article. [10] [11] [12] I've rejected your proposed addition and given reasons for it. Collaborative editing practice is for you to leave rejected content out, and take matters like this to the talk page. I'll start the discussion on this soon, but in the future, please follow that convention. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please use article talk pages to seek consensus for your edits after they have been reverted by other editors. Constantly re-adding material to articles without any effort to justify it on talk pages is extremely disruptive to the project. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Re your laundry list of smears here ( diff): WP:BLP applies on all pages at Wikipedia. I suggest you self revert. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Margaux Hemingway may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
What will it take to get you to TALK about your proposed additions to articles under discretionary sanctions before you add them? You must seek consensus from other editors. I've brought this problem up at multiple related talk pages, but most recently here if you want to weigh in. After I've endured today's turkeyfest, I will be seeking assistance at WP:ANI about your tendentious behavior. I will notify you here when I have posted there. In the meantime, enjoy Thanksgiving. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Downton Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condescending ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Professor JR, I was about to speedily delete the Lootergate redirect. Since the term isn't mentioned at the Hillary Clinton article, I was all ready to call it a G10 and R3. Glancing at your user page and contributions, though—well, honestly, I expected a troll. I'm glad you're not, so I thought I'd check with you first. I'm one of the main admins active at WP:RFD, and I'm pretty sure this would be deleted there. -- BDD ( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lootergate. Since you had some involvement with the Lootergate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey ( talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The "highly opinionated" quote reflected the balance of coverage as well as the tone of the source. That particular quote is no longer included but the section is now much better in tune with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Gamaliel ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you know the drill. Just to advise you on the WP:3RR rule. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hillary Clinton email scandal. Since you had some involvement with the Hillary Clinton email scandal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I encourage you to continue editing the Abedin Blp because a new Admin. may get involved which may lead to the editing becoming more cooperative and comprehensive. If you resume editing there, I will likely join back in myself. Nocturnalnow ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You thanked me for my attempt to tone down the POV in the lead of Hillary Clinton email controversy, but my edit was subsequently reverted twice by another editor. Care to step in? Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@
Zigzig20s: Looks like several of the HRC minions with little regard for POV policies have already stepped in -- and, believe me, they far outnumber you and me. It's probably a wasted effort to attempt to inculcate a more neutral POV into any article relating to Hillary Clinton, without inviting an endless barrage of edit-warring from her folks. (As you can see from the above comment from someone calling themselves "Muboshgu", they're even monitoring and trolling my TalkPage. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, but guess I should feel flattered, and I thank you again for your previous attempt at some neutral-POV edits.)
---
Professor JR (
talk) 18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I think it might be more productive to add referenced content from reviews, etc., to Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America and similar articles. (Note how I did not censor the negative review that's quoted btw...) On another topic, since you are from Wyoming, would you be interested in helping me create articles about prominent members of the Kemmerer family of the Kemmerer Coal Company? I found out about them by accident as one of Norman B. Ream's daughters married one of them. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@
Zigzig20s: Afraid I know almost nothing about Kemmerer, or the family, but would be willing to help if I can, and I am definitely interested in any articles having to do with Wyoming. And, as you apparently noticed (thank you for the thank you's) I have already started working to expand the article on the Cheneys' new book (although I inadvertently neglected to log-on for my first several edits, which consequently show as being from my IP address, rather than with my signature. Is there any way to correct that, that you're aware of?) Also parenthetically: (BTW - Cheney was a classmate of mine at the Univ. of Wyoming many years ago in the 1960's - back then, he sported a flat-top haircut and drove hot-rod cars, at least until Lynne got ahold of him and began straightening him out. None of us could have foreseen in those days, though, to what heights he would aspire later.)
---
Professor JR (
talk) 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I undid your on the footnote for the historical name of Denali. You put a reasonable and up to date sentence as a quotation from the Senate report, which is incorrect. If some version of your footnote text belongs in the lede (a separate discussion), it shouldn't be incorrectly portrayed as a quotation from that 2013 Senate report. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't restore wrong facts as you did here. The layoffs were well underway in 2001, so they could not have been a result of the large market share enjoyed by HP in 2002 after its merger with Compaq. Binksternet ( talk) 05:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Re John Kasich - See Wikipedia:Assume good faith (and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars). As for my edits, I find your comments puzzling. I removed a lot of unsourced content, and stand by my edits. (You don't seem to have a problem with 90% of them, as you left them almost entirely intact).
Also, several of your edits reinserted unsourced material. See WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material").
If you have particular concerns about particular material, I'll gladly engage with you on the article talk page. Neutrality talk 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see you edited Hillary Clinton email system. In this interview, she says "people can read them." Are they available online? I am not sure where to look; or if they can only be read in hard copy in a library, which would beat the purpose of "releasing" them IMO. I thought you might know. Zigzig20s ( talk) 16:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiddlesticks! (interjection) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddlesticks! (interjection) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Savonneux ( talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Savonneux I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "
Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with
American Louisiana Cajun culture among
enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.
That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in
Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only
short shrift) to the broader
American folklore and culture of the United States.
When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Edison ( talk) 18:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You edited Wikipedia before using the Professor JR account, correct? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I see that you state so on your user page. I didn't see that before asking you the above question. Anyway, were you editing as an IP before getting a registered account? Were you editing as one or more registered accounts? And, if the latter case, why are you now using a new account? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems like you are particularly focused on Hillary Clinton. Outside of the hugely problematic "controversies" article, (which the editor who approved has admitted should not have been approved) you added peacock tags on different articles when none were necessary such as this one [17] and this one [18] (anything positive was sourced and there is a neutral tone, discussing any criticisms). This kind of editing is seen as a bit disruptive and has led you to be labeled a WP:SPA (single-purpose account). It looks like you have made some very valuable contributions in many other areas but you have some personal bias regarding Hillary Clinton. I would kindly suggestion you should consider voluntarily not editing that topic. Also FYI, it is good if you list your previous account name - have you done this? It is confusing to see you claim you have been around since 2006 yet this account only has activity from May 2015 on. Happy editing. Thank you. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems users like User:Calidum, User:Scjessey, User:Muboshgu, and User:Tarc are patroling Hillary related articles with the coordination of coworkers sitting next to each other in a campaign office. I wonder how long until Administration catches on. Chrononem ☎ 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you guys threw a tantrum about a very non POV citation needed tag. Tell me, how did four editors independently decide that every passage in WP:LEAD referring to challenged statements was invalid? I noticed similar behavior with every other editor ( Professor JR being the most recent, sorry I got you involved) and thought I'd bring your obvious collusion to one of their attentions. I feel like you have an pre-authorized copy of the page and are working together to make sure it doesn't devivate in the least. Chrononem ☎ 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You ought to split your "Clinton controversies" draft into separate drafts for Bill and Hillary to avoid guilt by association. Also, the word "controversies" is no good in a title, per WP:Criticism, so you should change to something like "Hillary Clinton incidents" and "Bill Clinton incidents", or something similar (though I cannot guarantee that that would solve the problem unless you include some incidents that were not controversial). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Sulfurboy ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)31 July 2015 - User:Tarc - "You aren't keeping a userfied copy of a deleted article, esp one so blatantly WP:BLP-violating. If this is restored, the matter will be escalated.
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies
Just to make it clear, if you didn't know, that like all articles related to Abortion, this article is under a 1RR restriction. You have made two full or partial reverts of content today. Please make sure you stick to the limits in the future. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Professor JR, I just wanted to say hello and thank you for fixing some of the major POV problems this page was having, several of which I had also tried to implement before myself. I think you did a very good job of adding perspective to this page. Appreciate you. Juicebox 90 ( talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Planned Parenthood. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 08:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.EdJohnston ( talk) 13:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Planned Parenthood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This edit by you [19] added unsourced information to the Planned Parenthood article. Here is the source that is currently being used for that section of the sentence [20]; no where in the source does it mention the House of Representatives, which makes your edit a violation of WP:VERIFY. In the future, be sure to use a source that supports your changes. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You have attempted to add content to this section, contrary to the hidden instructions for editors in that section: Planned Parenthood#The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover videos. Please don't do that. Follow the instructions. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid using uncivil edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Your summary here may be considered uncivil. Let's keep it respectful even while we can disagree. Mattnad ( talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Re one big edit vs. many small edits - it is often helpful to separate out edits when doing a series. For example, if one change is to reorganize the order of paragraphs, another is for word choice, and yet another is to remove a sentence, it is oftentimes easier to do the edits in a series, rather than omnibus, for ease of editing and for ease of review. This is doubly true on controversial issues, where some changes may be unanimously agreed upon, and others highly contentious.
In any case, there is no need to be snarky about it. Neutrality talk 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
With respect to this edit summary, please assume good faith. I'm tired of your personal attacks, quite frankly. I've been editing on Wikipedia for years, with 20,000 edits on more than 6,000 unique pages. I've been intimately involved in the creation of many of Wikipedia's policies, and I understand those policies and guidelines very well indeed. I have always edited with fairness and unrelenting neutrality. Your accusations are unwarranted and startling examples of hypocrisy. If you are unhappy that I've removed something you have been working on (which is permissible under WP:BRD), say something on the talk page instead of reverting with a jackass comment. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Carly Fiorina. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Professor JR,
welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our
policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be
blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --
Callinus (
talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I must have accidentally clicked undo on your edit instead of the ip below you. Chrononem ☎ 15:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 21:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Your addition to
Malcolm Wallop has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. This is your final warning. You will once again be indef-blocked if there's any further copyright violations, and it's highly unlikely you will be unblocked a second time. —
Diannaa (
talk) 04:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding these edits [1] [2] [3] (and others): as you have repeatedly been cautioned: (1) do not edit war, particularly to insert disputed POV material into political campaign articles, (2) do not make accusations of bad faith against other editors, and (3) use the talk page to discuss disputed content changes to articles. I left you two cautions about it earlier this month, [4] and your editing behavior is under discussion by other editors as well in various places. It's your choice whether to abide by Wikipedia's editing policies; your refusal appears to be deliberate and longstanding, hence this courtesy notice. I, or another, may or may not revert you here, but whether here or anywhere else, yet another edit like these and I may take this to the appropriate administrative forum without further advance notice. - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you,
Max. I have other unavoidable (non-Wikipedia related) commitments today and tonight, but will offer my response first thing in the morning tomorrow (December 3) if you will be kind enough to grant me until then to comment, before taking any action in this matter.
I appreciate your consideration. ---
Professor JR (
talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Professor JR, unfortunately the discussion in the recent ANI thread leads to a clear conclusion: a consensus among editors is that you be topic banned from Hilary Clinton-related articles. Please see these diffs for my closing statement. See WP:UNBAN for possible appeals. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 22:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Professor JR, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa ( talk) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melissa Newman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Town & Country ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tortoiseshell cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Particoloured ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again; this time there is a much more aggressive posture aimed at entirely shutting down my edits. Please note the "Result" suggestion at the bottom of the discussion.Your comment regarding this banning attempt would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nocturnalnow Ban Attempt Nocturnalnow ( talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In the future, please do not italicize quotes, it makes them more difficult to read. I've undone your italics in the above article, but have retained your other changes. Best, BMK ( talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is
Donald J. Mitchell. The discussion is about the topic
Topic. Thank you. —
—Мандичка
YO 😜 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The claims about Abedin represent a tiny minority fringe POV, which has been widely rejected, condemned and described as a conspiracy theory by sources ranging from The Washington Post to John McCain. As per WP:NPOV, we must give the clear and overwhelming majority viewpoint — that the claims are unfounded, politically motivated and fundamentally unfair — due prominence, and this is of particular import given that the article subject is a living person. Discussing them without clearly labeling them as a widely-discredited fringe theory advanced only by a small group of right-wing partisans gives the claims undue weight, which is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I was thinking of trying to improve the Hillary Clinton article, and I am wondering if you have any advice about that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The claims about Abedin are a fringe theory, and will be dealt with as such. They are widely repudiated and we will treat them exactly as mainstream sources have treated them — unfounded conspiracy theories that unfairly smear a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 11:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You may wish to make a statement here Nocturnalnow ( talk) 12:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You are making multiple edits that reverts previous material. I don't want to report this to avoid drama, but please be aware of the issue as if you continue, I will have no choice but report it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
ProfessorJR -- since we went round a bit on Melania Trump a few months back and, much to your credit, you helped change my mind a bit on WP:BLP issues related to candidates' spouses (and ex's), I was curious why you switched Barron Trump from its former redirect to Trump's "Personal Life" to its own independent article. To my mind, Barron is obviously not independently notable, but I'm wondering what new thoughts you may have. Hope all's well with you Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
"Bullying reverts" [9]?! Your judgment is really in question. That's pretty off-base and even offensive. (There was a revert war, yes. I reverted LESS, and included sensible editsum rationales, as opposed to my "opponent". I also responded to nasty arguments on the article Talk, w/o responding in kind. I also opened an RfC, when that was reasonable & appropriate to do.) Perhaps you s/ bring to bear a bit more sensitivity in your evaluations!? You s/ also review WP:TPG, because you restored posts incompatible w/ article Talk page guideline specified there. (And if you knew it was contrary to guideline when you restorred it, then there's a valid complaint about your own behavior, disruption to prove a point.) Good luck on the Wikipedia. IHTS ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You're now at the limit of 3RR for Marco Rubio. Best to take a breather. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I see you're edit warring over some material you're proposing to add to the Hillary Clinton email article. [10] [11] [12] I've rejected your proposed addition and given reasons for it. Collaborative editing practice is for you to leave rejected content out, and take matters like this to the talk page. I'll start the discussion on this soon, but in the future, please follow that convention. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please use article talk pages to seek consensus for your edits after they have been reverted by other editors. Constantly re-adding material to articles without any effort to justify it on talk pages is extremely disruptive to the project. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Re your laundry list of smears here ( diff): WP:BLP applies on all pages at Wikipedia. I suggest you self revert. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Margaux Hemingway may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
What will it take to get you to TALK about your proposed additions to articles under discretionary sanctions before you add them? You must seek consensus from other editors. I've brought this problem up at multiple related talk pages, but most recently here if you want to weigh in. After I've endured today's turkeyfest, I will be seeking assistance at WP:ANI about your tendentious behavior. I will notify you here when I have posted there. In the meantime, enjoy Thanksgiving. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Downton Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condescending ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Professor JR, I was about to speedily delete the Lootergate redirect. Since the term isn't mentioned at the Hillary Clinton article, I was all ready to call it a G10 and R3. Glancing at your user page and contributions, though—well, honestly, I expected a troll. I'm glad you're not, so I thought I'd check with you first. I'm one of the main admins active at WP:RFD, and I'm pretty sure this would be deleted there. -- BDD ( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lootergate. Since you had some involvement with the Lootergate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey ( talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The "highly opinionated" quote reflected the balance of coverage as well as the tone of the source. That particular quote is no longer included but the section is now much better in tune with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Gamaliel ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you know the drill. Just to advise you on the WP:3RR rule. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hillary Clinton email scandal. Since you had some involvement with the Hillary Clinton email scandal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I encourage you to continue editing the Abedin Blp because a new Admin. may get involved which may lead to the editing becoming more cooperative and comprehensive. If you resume editing there, I will likely join back in myself. Nocturnalnow ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You thanked me for my attempt to tone down the POV in the lead of Hillary Clinton email controversy, but my edit was subsequently reverted twice by another editor. Care to step in? Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@
Zigzig20s: Looks like several of the HRC minions with little regard for POV policies have already stepped in -- and, believe me, they far outnumber you and me. It's probably a wasted effort to attempt to inculcate a more neutral POV into any article relating to Hillary Clinton, without inviting an endless barrage of edit-warring from her folks. (As you can see from the above comment from someone calling themselves "Muboshgu", they're even monitoring and trolling my TalkPage. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, but guess I should feel flattered, and I thank you again for your previous attempt at some neutral-POV edits.)
---
Professor JR (
talk) 18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I think it might be more productive to add referenced content from reviews, etc., to Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America and similar articles. (Note how I did not censor the negative review that's quoted btw...) On another topic, since you are from Wyoming, would you be interested in helping me create articles about prominent members of the Kemmerer family of the Kemmerer Coal Company? I found out about them by accident as one of Norman B. Ream's daughters married one of them. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@
Zigzig20s: Afraid I know almost nothing about Kemmerer, or the family, but would be willing to help if I can, and I am definitely interested in any articles having to do with Wyoming. And, as you apparently noticed (thank you for the thank you's) I have already started working to expand the article on the Cheneys' new book (although I inadvertently neglected to log-on for my first several edits, which consequently show as being from my IP address, rather than with my signature. Is there any way to correct that, that you're aware of?) Also parenthetically: (BTW - Cheney was a classmate of mine at the Univ. of Wyoming many years ago in the 1960's - back then, he sported a flat-top haircut and drove hot-rod cars, at least until Lynne got ahold of him and began straightening him out. None of us could have foreseen in those days, though, to what heights he would aspire later.)
---
Professor JR (
talk) 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I undid your on the footnote for the historical name of Denali. You put a reasonable and up to date sentence as a quotation from the Senate report, which is incorrect. If some version of your footnote text belongs in the lede (a separate discussion), it shouldn't be incorrectly portrayed as a quotation from that 2013 Senate report. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't restore wrong facts as you did here. The layoffs were well underway in 2001, so they could not have been a result of the large market share enjoyed by HP in 2002 after its merger with Compaq. Binksternet ( talk) 05:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Re John Kasich - See Wikipedia:Assume good faith (and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars). As for my edits, I find your comments puzzling. I removed a lot of unsourced content, and stand by my edits. (You don't seem to have a problem with 90% of them, as you left them almost entirely intact).
Also, several of your edits reinserted unsourced material. See WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material").
If you have particular concerns about particular material, I'll gladly engage with you on the article talk page. Neutrality talk 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see you edited Hillary Clinton email system. In this interview, she says "people can read them." Are they available online? I am not sure where to look; or if they can only be read in hard copy in a library, which would beat the purpose of "releasing" them IMO. I thought you might know. Zigzig20s ( talk) 16:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiddlesticks! (interjection) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddlesticks! (interjection) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Savonneux ( talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Savonneux I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "
Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with
American Louisiana Cajun culture among
enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.
That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in
Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only
short shrift) to the broader
American folklore and culture of the United States.
When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Edison ( talk) 18:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You edited Wikipedia before using the Professor JR account, correct? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I see that you state so on your user page. I didn't see that before asking you the above question. Anyway, were you editing as an IP before getting a registered account? Were you editing as one or more registered accounts? And, if the latter case, why are you now using a new account? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems like you are particularly focused on Hillary Clinton. Outside of the hugely problematic "controversies" article, (which the editor who approved has admitted should not have been approved) you added peacock tags on different articles when none were necessary such as this one [17] and this one [18] (anything positive was sourced and there is a neutral tone, discussing any criticisms). This kind of editing is seen as a bit disruptive and has led you to be labeled a WP:SPA (single-purpose account). It looks like you have made some very valuable contributions in many other areas but you have some personal bias regarding Hillary Clinton. I would kindly suggestion you should consider voluntarily not editing that topic. Also FYI, it is good if you list your previous account name - have you done this? It is confusing to see you claim you have been around since 2006 yet this account only has activity from May 2015 on. Happy editing. Thank you. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems users like User:Calidum, User:Scjessey, User:Muboshgu, and User:Tarc are patroling Hillary related articles with the coordination of coworkers sitting next to each other in a campaign office. I wonder how long until Administration catches on. Chrononem ☎ 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you guys threw a tantrum about a very non POV citation needed tag. Tell me, how did four editors independently decide that every passage in WP:LEAD referring to challenged statements was invalid? I noticed similar behavior with every other editor ( Professor JR being the most recent, sorry I got you involved) and thought I'd bring your obvious collusion to one of their attentions. I feel like you have an pre-authorized copy of the page and are working together to make sure it doesn't devivate in the least. Chrononem ☎ 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You ought to split your "Clinton controversies" draft into separate drafts for Bill and Hillary to avoid guilt by association. Also, the word "controversies" is no good in a title, per WP:Criticism, so you should change to something like "Hillary Clinton incidents" and "Bill Clinton incidents", or something similar (though I cannot guarantee that that would solve the problem unless you include some incidents that were not controversial). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Sulfurboy ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)31 July 2015 - User:Tarc - "You aren't keeping a userfied copy of a deleted article, esp one so blatantly WP:BLP-violating. If this is restored, the matter will be escalated.
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies
Just to make it clear, if you didn't know, that like all articles related to Abortion, this article is under a 1RR restriction. You have made two full or partial reverts of content today. Please make sure you stick to the limits in the future. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Professor JR, I just wanted to say hello and thank you for fixing some of the major POV problems this page was having, several of which I had also tried to implement before myself. I think you did a very good job of adding perspective to this page. Appreciate you. Juicebox 90 ( talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Planned Parenthood. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 08:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.EdJohnston ( talk) 13:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Planned Parenthood shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This edit by you [19] added unsourced information to the Planned Parenthood article. Here is the source that is currently being used for that section of the sentence [20]; no where in the source does it mention the House of Representatives, which makes your edit a violation of WP:VERIFY. In the future, be sure to use a source that supports your changes. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You have attempted to add content to this section, contrary to the hidden instructions for editors in that section: Planned Parenthood#The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover videos. Please don't do that. Follow the instructions. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid using uncivil edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Your summary here may be considered uncivil. Let's keep it respectful even while we can disagree. Mattnad ( talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Re one big edit vs. many small edits - it is often helpful to separate out edits when doing a series. For example, if one change is to reorganize the order of paragraphs, another is for word choice, and yet another is to remove a sentence, it is oftentimes easier to do the edits in a series, rather than omnibus, for ease of editing and for ease of review. This is doubly true on controversial issues, where some changes may be unanimously agreed upon, and others highly contentious.
In any case, there is no need to be snarky about it. Neutrality talk 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
With respect to this edit summary, please assume good faith. I'm tired of your personal attacks, quite frankly. I've been editing on Wikipedia for years, with 20,000 edits on more than 6,000 unique pages. I've been intimately involved in the creation of many of Wikipedia's policies, and I understand those policies and guidelines very well indeed. I have always edited with fairness and unrelenting neutrality. Your accusations are unwarranted and startling examples of hypocrisy. If you are unhappy that I've removed something you have been working on (which is permissible under WP:BRD), say something on the talk page instead of reverting with a jackass comment. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Carly Fiorina. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Professor JR,
welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our
policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be
blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --
Callinus (
talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I must have accidentally clicked undo on your edit instead of the ip below you. Chrononem ☎ 15:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)