My block had nothing to do with abuse of the page. That was a cheap shot. NYyankees51 ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know what was "not constructive" about writing down Lipinski's recent comments about HR 3. Please explain further. Thank you. (just moving this for formatting purposes Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)) SteelersFan123 ( talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)SteelersFan123
I cited all of my sources and what was written about him was only in regards to his stances on HR 3. I would like a very concise and thorough explanation. Thirteen percent of contributors to Wikipedia are women. I finally write about something that interests me as a woman, and I am immediately deleted. I am done with Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for squelching my voice about issues that matter to me as a woman in America today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelersFan123 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Arbor832466 your tactics are bully some. As a proud, gay abortion doctor, I will advise you to cease this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandenling ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of posting my own viewpoint in the Bob Etheridge article. The supposed "facts" presented in the article prior to my edit were from an opinion column. My edit clarifies that the "source" did not quote any sources of its own. That is a FACT, not an opinion. It also states that the source did not name the supposed "Republican strategists." That is a FACT, not an opinion. I'm sorry if the narrative conflicts with your political viewpoint but Wikipedia is about FACTS I do believe and those are what I added. Please don't cite me some esoteric opertating guidelines either to tell me I'm wrong, we all know what the defintion of "is" is, and we know what a fact is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Are you a fluent speaker of the English language? If so, please define "fact": _____________________.
2. The "source" cited in the article did not quote any sources of its own. Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
3. The "source" cited in the article did not name these supposed "Republican political strategists." Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
4. If your answer to #3 is anything but an unquivocal "yes," please state the names of thes "Republican political strategists": __________________. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 05:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me? "Out of line"? I asked you simple questions regarding facts, and what constitute the same. Please don't use that supercilious tone with me. I await your response to these simple questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Corbridge. Some of your recent edits are bordering on incivility. Please try to direct your comments at the content of Wikipedia, not at the character of other editors. Thanks. Arbor8 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, any user is allowed to remove almost any message from their talk page (exceptions are for things like declined unblock requests while still blocked, sockpuppet notifications, etc.). So User:RadPadFren is allowed to remove those warnings from his/her page. The removal is considered to be an acknowledgment that the message has been read. See WP:BLANKING for more details. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for pointing out my error. ;-) I accidentally placed the wrong url in there. I fixed it. Nightscream ( talk) 19:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean it was not an easy win? Reliable sources clearly indicate he won with ease. [1] [2] [3] Truthsort ( talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I found this AFD discussion, which you created back last October; unfortunately you forgot to list it on the WP:AFD main page, as you should have done. As a result it was never closed - AFD discussions normally get seven days of discussion, but this one's been open for five months! I've closed it myself, since the only possible result was keep: the subject, Stephen Fincher, has since been elected and become indisputably notable. But just remember to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO more closely in future. (Step 3 is what you missed here.) Robofish ( talk) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arbor: As indicated by the following comments I would ask that you comment in a civil manner. Your comment is inappropriate and wrong. The article about Kristi Noem is a fair article. It is not "pro-Noem propaganda" as you state. I have not stated that only "pro-Noem propaganda" is the only information that should go in the article. Also, I have not been "pushing" an agenda. Please refrain from making such personal attacks. Please stop. You can review your personal attacks here: personal attack one and here: personal attack two-- Corbridge ( talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not engage in WP:CANVAS as you have done here: Canvas 1 and here: Canvas 2 and here: Canvas 3 and here: Canvas 4 and here: Canvas 5 and here: Canvas 6 and here: Canvas 7-- Corbridge ( talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know... I have asked to have the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Corbridge, deleted as it no longer has 2 users certifying/supporting it. --Regards -- KeptSouth ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You may wish to add to your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410 the IPs I mention there. I would, but am not sure of protocol, given that it is your report. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bill Flores continues to be blanked. Please help in monitoring for changes if you can. Thanks SimonBolivar20112 ( talk) 22:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It was blanked again by a user that you gave final warning to. I will request page protection SimonBolivar20112 ( talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is consensus, even though you are the one person who does not feel it should be deleted.
This seems like a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS because a minor spat between two minor congressmen is certainly not encyclopedic content. If you disagree, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm considering asking for an admin to resolve the issue.
DaffyBridge ( talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to take another look at your revert here [4]. Thanks. -- CutOffTies ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What part am I exactly violating? All the info I gave is true, and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.83 ( talk) 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Matt Stoller, as it was previously discussed at VfD (the predecessor to the present-day AfD) and therefore cannot be deleted under the proposed deletion process. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; it is not an endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open another AfD. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arbor8!
I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!
It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!
Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!
Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You can read my reply here. I can't believe you have so little respect for other Wikipedia editors, but I suppose I should be thankful you at least admit it upfront. 99.50.190.206 ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pat_Tiberi&action=historysubmit&diff=459815617&oldid=459766070
I've tagged the IP user talk page as preamble to blocking the account. Based on your other edits, I suspect I'm to the left of you, politically, but when it comes to vandals of any persuasion, I can assure you that I am all fire & brimstone. Please let me know if you need any help combating them. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, in advance for responding.--Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Left another msg or 2 related to your SPI. Happy holiday, Regards KeptSouth ( talk) 23:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted User:75.133.172.99's re-addition of unsourced information to the Claire McCaskill regarding her alleged role in the shut down of the Kansas City International Raceway, and I noticed in the article's edit history that you reverted the same addition of that information by this user last month. Any thoughts on how to deal with this issue beyond reverting the information in question would be appreciated. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
My block had nothing to do with abuse of the page. That was a cheap shot. NYyankees51 ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know what was "not constructive" about writing down Lipinski's recent comments about HR 3. Please explain further. Thank you. (just moving this for formatting purposes Arbor832466 ( talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)) SteelersFan123 ( talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)SteelersFan123
I cited all of my sources and what was written about him was only in regards to his stances on HR 3. I would like a very concise and thorough explanation. Thirteen percent of contributors to Wikipedia are women. I finally write about something that interests me as a woman, and I am immediately deleted. I am done with Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for squelching my voice about issues that matter to me as a woman in America today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelersFan123 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Arbor832466 your tactics are bully some. As a proud, gay abortion doctor, I will advise you to cease this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandenling ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of posting my own viewpoint in the Bob Etheridge article. The supposed "facts" presented in the article prior to my edit were from an opinion column. My edit clarifies that the "source" did not quote any sources of its own. That is a FACT, not an opinion. It also states that the source did not name the supposed "Republican strategists." That is a FACT, not an opinion. I'm sorry if the narrative conflicts with your political viewpoint but Wikipedia is about FACTS I do believe and those are what I added. Please don't cite me some esoteric opertating guidelines either to tell me I'm wrong, we all know what the defintion of "is" is, and we know what a fact is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Are you a fluent speaker of the English language? If so, please define "fact": _____________________.
2. The "source" cited in the article did not quote any sources of its own. Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
3. The "source" cited in the article did not name these supposed "Republican political strategists." Is this a fact in your mind, or not? Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
4. If your answer to #3 is anything but an unquivocal "yes," please state the names of thes "Republican political strategists": __________________. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 05:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me? "Out of line"? I asked you simple questions regarding facts, and what constitute the same. Please don't use that supercilious tone with me. I await your response to these simple questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.96.253 ( talk) 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Corbridge. Some of your recent edits are bordering on incivility. Please try to direct your comments at the content of Wikipedia, not at the character of other editors. Thanks. Arbor8 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, any user is allowed to remove almost any message from their talk page (exceptions are for things like declined unblock requests while still blocked, sockpuppet notifications, etc.). So User:RadPadFren is allowed to remove those warnings from his/her page. The removal is considered to be an acknowledgment that the message has been read. See WP:BLANKING for more details. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for pointing out my error. ;-) I accidentally placed the wrong url in there. I fixed it. Nightscream ( talk) 19:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean it was not an easy win? Reliable sources clearly indicate he won with ease. [1] [2] [3] Truthsort ( talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I found this AFD discussion, which you created back last October; unfortunately you forgot to list it on the WP:AFD main page, as you should have done. As a result it was never closed - AFD discussions normally get seven days of discussion, but this one's been open for five months! I've closed it myself, since the only possible result was keep: the subject, Stephen Fincher, has since been elected and become indisputably notable. But just remember to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO more closely in future. (Step 3 is what you missed here.) Robofish ( talk) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arbor: As indicated by the following comments I would ask that you comment in a civil manner. Your comment is inappropriate and wrong. The article about Kristi Noem is a fair article. It is not "pro-Noem propaganda" as you state. I have not stated that only "pro-Noem propaganda" is the only information that should go in the article. Also, I have not been "pushing" an agenda. Please refrain from making such personal attacks. Please stop. You can review your personal attacks here: personal attack one and here: personal attack two-- Corbridge ( talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not engage in WP:CANVAS as you have done here: Canvas 1 and here: Canvas 2 and here: Canvas 3 and here: Canvas 4 and here: Canvas 5 and here: Canvas 6 and here: Canvas 7-- Corbridge ( talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know... I have asked to have the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Corbridge, deleted as it no longer has 2 users certifying/supporting it. --Regards -- KeptSouth ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You may wish to add to your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410 the IPs I mention there. I would, but am not sure of protocol, given that it is your report. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bill Flores continues to be blanked. Please help in monitoring for changes if you can. Thanks SimonBolivar20112 ( talk) 22:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It was blanked again by a user that you gave final warning to. I will request page protection SimonBolivar20112 ( talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is consensus, even though you are the one person who does not feel it should be deleted.
This seems like a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS because a minor spat between two minor congressmen is certainly not encyclopedic content. If you disagree, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm considering asking for an admin to resolve the issue.
DaffyBridge ( talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to take another look at your revert here [4]. Thanks. -- CutOffTies ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What part am I exactly violating? All the info I gave is true, and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.83 ( talk) 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Matt Stoller, as it was previously discussed at VfD (the predecessor to the present-day AfD) and therefore cannot be deleted under the proposed deletion process. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; it is not an endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open another AfD. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arbor8!
I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!
It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!
Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!
Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You can read my reply here. I can't believe you have so little respect for other Wikipedia editors, but I suppose I should be thankful you at least admit it upfront. 99.50.190.206 ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pat_Tiberi&action=historysubmit&diff=459815617&oldid=459766070
I've tagged the IP user talk page as preamble to blocking the account. Based on your other edits, I suspect I'm to the left of you, politically, but when it comes to vandals of any persuasion, I can assure you that I am all fire & brimstone. Please let me know if you need any help combating them. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, in advance for responding.--Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Left another msg or 2 related to your SPI. Happy holiday, Regards KeptSouth ( talk) 23:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted User:75.133.172.99's re-addition of unsourced information to the Claire McCaskill regarding her alleged role in the shut down of the Kansas City International Raceway, and I noticed in the article's edit history that you reverted the same addition of that information by this user last month. Any thoughts on how to deal with this issue beyond reverting the information in question would be appreciated. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)