Between 01:53 and 03:06 UTC on Jan 25 I made very many edits to this article to correct numerous problems with it which I summarized in each edit summary.

At 19:35 UTC on Jan 25 you deleted ALL my edits at a single move claiming "the edits made over the last few hours seem extremely improper"

At 03:29 UTC on Jan 26 I posted a very extensive explanation on the TALK page for each edit justifying to yoy (and re-justifying to myself) the reasons for each edit that I had made. As it happens I did find one area where I may have deleted too much but I did not accept that I had overstepped any rules.

At 03:32 UTC on Jan 26 I therefore reverted your unjustified deletes and invited you to reply to each of the points that I had made on the TALK page.

At 15:15 UTC on Jan 26 you reversed my content changes yet again with a simple statment "Reversed improper deletion of content. Will ask for page protection if this continues." This was your second revert without proper explanation.

At 15:18 UTC on Jan 26 you expand on your reasons for the delete with the words "You do in fact explain your reasons but the (sic) are all incoherent."

At 17:43 UTC on Jan 27 I for the second time reverted your edit with the edit summary "(undid edits by incalcitrant editor User:intermittentgardener who refuses to engage at TALK and justify his edits" I feel totally justified in doing so because you refused to give a single reason for your deletes other than you feel them to be "improper".

At 19:58 UTC on Jan 27 you, for the third time undid my edits without proper explanation.

At 20:15 UTC on Jan 27 YOU had the cheek to post a complaint about ME at Wikiquette aerts [1]

Because you have reverted my edits three times without proper explanation I am going to raise a complaint about you at AN/I. I am also going to reinstate my edits. Hauskalainen ( talk) 09:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Can both of you (with respect to the above logs), remember the Three Revert rule? For sake of clarification, I'll post the template below. Dusti ^*poke* 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You need to read WP:BRD. This is the only known method for determining when an edit war starts and who started it. Discussion doesn't justify continued editing of the contentious material. You must reach a consensus first. To do otherwise is to treat the article like a battlefield. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Independent Payment Advisory Board. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dusti ^*poke* 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have made another complaint at AN/I as the editor continues to insert improper text and refuses to engage in normal discussions at the article's talk page. Hauskalainen ( talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have reposted the complaint after the first was archived without comment. Hauskalainen ( talk) 11:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You are engaging in edits that are adding a strong POV to the article Independent Payment Advisory Board. This diff with its 18 different edits, almost all of which are yours clearly reveals your editing tactics

Examples

1. You removed from the lede a very important element of the bill that it DOES NOT PERMIT rationing via changing cost sharing, cutting benefits or changing eligibility rules and demoted it to a section called "Allegations of rationing".
2. You DEMOTED in the order the factual information that the CBO estimated that the IPAB would save 15.5 billion over its first 5 years.
3. You PROMOTED text about claims of rationing that were in an OPINION section and moved them to the section you created called "ALLEGATIONS OF RATIONING". It is hard to see how there can be any serious allegations of rationing when the law actually forbids it and what's more the board has not even been formed, let alone taking any decisions. As I said before here, these are opinions and are not particularly noteworthy. WP rules quite clearly state that we have to include the views of mainstream experts in their field. As to the source of these allegations, we have one, which is a pure opinion piece and not from any expert in medicine or government. He is a college lecturer. His opinions are not all worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as I have already indicated here. The second "opinion" is from one Sarah Palin, a private person who hold no public office (and who is not running for one as far as we know), and who is no medical expert. I don't mind her opinion being here as she is a rather prominent person renowned for her outlandish use of language ("death panel" and "blood libel" for example), and she was roundly criticized for her claims, but in my opinion it was better when her OPINION was clearly located in the OPINION section as it was here (i.e. before you moved it). Creating a section called "allegations of rationing" in a Wikipedia article adds a level of credibility to these allegations which, quite frankly, they do not deserve. I am sure that was your intention though, but it is POV pushing and therefore highly inappropriate.
4. You added back a piece about the comments of congressman Pete Stark. To be sure, he is a congressman but there are hundreds of others. Ehy pick on his opinion? I think the reason you chose only his comments is that it fits nicely into the POV that you seem to be pushing (i.e. that IPAB will ration care and be a generally bad thing). Personally I think this edit needs to come out because it is not balanced. Incidentally, do you think that this Pete Stark is the same as Fortney P. Stark who ran as a candidate in the election in California and whose political campaign was stuffed with money from the medical industry? See [2] I guess we should not be surprised that congressmen and women make loud noises which might please their political sponsors. Really though, this view is hardly as noteworthy as the other two opinions that you removed from the article (see below).
5. Here comes a whopper. You moved this text "The bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform supported the board and in a 11-to-7 vote the commission recommended strengthening IPAB further. The vote however failed to reach the supermajority of 14 required to refer its proposals to Congress. The majority opinion was that the exemptions in the law that prevents IPAB decisions affecting certain providers for several years should be lifted" which was in the section called OPINION (for this is what it is) and demoted into a new section right next to the section which you entitled REPEAL EFFORTS under Proposed Legislative changes. A casual reader at first glance may well think that there are serious repeal efforts to change the law and that the Fiscal Commission report wanted to repeal the law. The demotion and the creation of another POV section heading coupled with its close alignment is not so subtle POV pushing. There have been NO SERIOUS REPEAL EFFORTS as far as I can tell and the commission was actually in favor of the IPAB and wanted to bring in its provisions sooner than planned. This is unacceptable POV pushing.
6. You deleted altogether the comments Peter Orszag and his quote that IPAB is "perhaps most important" among the cost-containing steps taken in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Again a clear act of POV pushing.
7. You also deleted another passage that does not seem to concur with the POV you are pushing. This is the bit where Princeton University health care economist Uwe Reinhardt said that he thought the board was the most potent tool to restrain health care inflation

Enough already! Your edits are clearly done with a view to pushing a particular POV and this is unacceptable. Hauskalainen ( talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to add in the material that you mentioned. It sounds relevant. However, please do not use this as an excuse to blank out huge blocks of content. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

For the record, the editor who posted the above screed was blocked for his serial misbehavior. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 18:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

hello, i don't know if you "crossed the line" but there is something to be aware of, called Wikipedia:Canvassing. basically we don't want to select a biased sample of editors to comment on a discussion, as it would bias consensus. just something to keep in mind. thanks again. Jesanj ( talk) 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I am aware of it. I intentionally picked a wide range of folks to be involved in the discussion. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

And the comments supporting Hauskalainen by some of the editors I contacted seems to be proof that my attempt to contact folks on both sides of the issue was successful. :-) Intermittentgardener ( talk) 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, it appears you did a good job with that. Thanks for your effort. How about reading this: Help:Talk_page#Indentation? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 17:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

please use the talk page to explain your feeling, at least, as to why you feel so strongly. [3] i don't think it is wise to add that much material back to the article without any talk page discussion. the article was recently protected for a week because of a content dispute/edit warring. Jesanj ( talk) 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I really have nothing more to say than what is already in the discussion. I do not see why we have to be held hostage by Hauskalainen. This material is NPOV, notable, and directly relevant to the topic at hand. In fact, the death panel remarks by Palin are probably the biggest reason why IPAB is famous. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Frankly, this talk page has gotten out of hand. Hauskalainen is filibustering here and still engaging in a slow motion edit war. I mean look at all the comments here. It defies belief. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the IPAB talk page. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree that we shouldn't be "held hostage". I think that the revision that was protected, after Haus' removal, wasn't the "appropriate" version. To correct that problem I suggested a sentence at the end of this section: Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#Palin_WSJ_charge_.26_FactCheck_response. You added some things I wouldn't have. Should I revert those and then we can discuss? It just looks like it is going to get messy again. May I suggest you self-revert and then we can discuss? Just because Haus isn't a collaborative spirit doesn't me we shouldn't try, it seems. =) Jesanj ( talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I would rather just see you make the revisions you want. If there is a problem we can revise and discuss. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

OK. For what it's worth, I am skeptical "the death panel remarks by Palin are probably the biggest reason why the IPAB is famous". Serious health care reformers point to it as an enitity that may do some good while health care providers are concerned about their revenue. The death panel attacks have brought in some attention, but I'm skeptical of the importance you see. Jesanj ( talk) 13:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you have done so much I disagree with I think I will have to revert it all. Otherwise, it is an inefficient use of my time, in my opinion. I think proposing edits on the talk page is the way to go on this page. Jesanj ( talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Nothing would ever get done on the article. Look, everything that I just put up meets the requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. It is properly sourced, notable, NPOV, and on topic. What exactly is the problem? Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I just went through the text line by line and compared it to the sources. I have to stand by what is written. The current text accurately reflects what happened as written in the sources. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I think we can make progress by proposing edits and then waiting for comment before making changes. What is wrong with that approach? It is how the Holtz-Eakin content originated. Jesanj ( talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I do not see any reason to do so. If someone sees a change that should be made they should make it. If others see a problem with it they can revert and discuss or make revisions. That is how editing works throughout Wikipedia and it works just fine. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's a reason. Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. It's italicized at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Jesanj ( talk) 15:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I do not regard any of these changes as controversial or novel in any way. The material I just added is NPOV, properly sourced, and topical. I have to insist that you deal with each issue specifically. If there are problems we can discuss them in detail. However, I am not going to accept any arrangement where material is deleted solely because you were not consulted. You do not own the article. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The material you added has been removed previously. How can you honestly say you don't regard the expansion as controversial? Jesanj ( talk) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It was removed by Hauskalainen with no justification. Properly sourced, NPOV material that is on topic should be improved if there is a problem, not removed wholesale. Also, I was very careful to pick out material that was relevant and innocuous. I also made changes according to feedback from other users on the talk page. And if you look at WP:PRESERVE you will see that "controversial changes" pretty clearly refers to deletions and major re-writes of existing material. Anyhow, if you have specific problems with with specific content we can address those concerns. In the mean time, failure to consult you does not mean that something can be deleted. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I've addressed my concerns before with the primary sources at Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#text_regarding_constitutionality & Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#notability.3F. Jesanj ( talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Take a look at WP:Primary. It states pretty clearly that primary sources are acceptable as long as we are careful not to analyze or interpret them. What is written faithfully reproduces the sources. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 02:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Take a look at primary again. We are not supposed to "base articles entirely on primary sources." While not an article, you were heavily basing that section off of primary sources. However, Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source which usually relies on secondary sources. Highlighting that suit with primary sources elevates the suit's importance ( WP:UNDUE), IMO. Meanwhile, The Hill, the only independent reliable secondary source I've seen (and it's a blog no less!) was dismissive if its potential impact... Jesanj ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The Hill is a nationally famous and well respected publication. It posts its print articles in blog format. Google it. :-) Intermittentgardener ( talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the first sentence under the section "Overview" reads, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Please re-consider your use of WP:PRIMARY sources that have not been independently published. They can all too easily create WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems. Please adjust your editing here in accordance with our content guideline. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you read the material that you have referenced you will see that primary sources are acceptable when used with care. Specifically, in the case of PhRMA, I am using the organization's website only as evidence of their own opinions and I have been very careful in my writing to say as much and not do any interpretation. Generally sources are pretty reliable about their own opinions. Hence, PhRMA says... PhRMA claims... PhRMA argues....

Now, you have a really bad problem with section blanking that needs to stop. If you keep this up I am going to take immediate administrative action against you. If you have a problem with text (that is not a copyright violation or a BLP violation) deleting huge chunks of it is not the solution. Re-write, tag it, bring it up for discussion, or bring in third-parties. Do not delete it. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You are using PhRMA's website to create sections but "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Yes, primary sources can be used with care. So how should one proceed? I recommend thinking of primary sources as supplements that play a minor role when real sources are lacking. Jesanj ( talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I am using primary sources only for the Issues section and the issues section is all about PhRMA's opinions. I was careful not to interpret. And you have to stop section blanking. What you are doing is really inappropriate. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I replied at Talk:Pharmaceutical_Research_and_Manufacturers_of_America. And section blanking would be bad if I was removing things that were in line with consensus, policies, or content guidelines. But in my opinion, the content I removed hasn't been in line with the encyclopedia's interest. As I had to tell our old friend Haus, please stop pretending an essay ( Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies) is a policy. Jesanj ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I never said you violated a policy. I just said it is way, way inappropriate and not consistent with how things are done here. Do not follow me around Wikipedia edit warring. Thank you. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 15:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think it makes sense to accuse others of being "way, way inappropriate" and inconsistent with community norms if they aren't breaching a policy or guideline. Speaking of edit warring, what are we going to do with the IPAB article seeing that it has been protected for a long time due to us? Should we seek outside input somewhere? That request for comment didn't do anything. Third opinion? WP:NPOVN? Seems like we need to do something, otherwise we might go back to reverting each other there. Jesanj ( talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

How does this sound? It sounds like you want positive info in. I will go out of my way to find the sort of opinions you mentioned for two weeks after the lock is lifted. In return, you have to stop section blanking. It really is inappropriate except under limited circumstances. I have lots of experience on Wikipedia on accounts I used before but have left dormant. If you keep doing that you will end up in big trouble. The other thing I would like is for you to be more proactive about making changes that you feel need to be made. We can change-revert-discuss-change-revert. So, I give you some good faith, you stop section blanking, and we work to improve by making the changes that we think need to be made instead of edit-warring and section blanking. We can solve this on our own. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You're making a kind and considerate offer on your part. Thank you. What I've tried to demonstrate, though, is that your sections aren't quality contributions. Writing whole sections off of an organization's website? I've never even considered doing that on Wikipedia. And then that whole Goldwater Institute lawsuit section at IPAB. You wrote up a section with both sides 50%/50% from primary sources when The Hill thought the suit wasn't much to look at. Can't you see where I'm coming from? I can't help but conclude that some of your contributions aren't in the interest of Wikipedia. So, sorry, but I don't think it is wise to verbally commit to something that may make an article worse. I was hoping at IPAB that you would add the positive material, since you, in my opinion, over-did the negative side. I've hesitated and stalled on saying this, but, since we're discussing things, might it make things more clear for me and other editors if you declared a possible WP:COI? From what I've seen, you feel that a government agency deserves to have information including a political attack (that wasn't even directed at it initally) and negative material added, but then on another article (which is the lobbying group that wants to abolish the agency) you expand using their own published material. It would be nice if we can fix it ourselves but I'm doubtful that would work. Jesanj ( talk) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, hey. Let's pull back and calm down. A lot of what you are saying is unfair to me. I do not have a COI. I am a person with a strong interest in healthcare and pretty much every other area of public policy. In fact I do not even live in the United States. Let's put aside the personal feelings and then work out a process for working with each other. One part of this process will have to be separating things out issue by issue and handling them on a one-off basis. You can't keep bringing up things related to one issue in the context of another issue. We have to compartmentalize. And no matter what you do, I am going to keep the first part of my promise and do more research on IPAB to represent the positive side of the debate. And the reason I am doing that is that you seem to have the idea that I am some kind of bad actor and that is most definitely not the case. So, let's build some trust and then we can define the issues and then we can talk process. Okay? Intermittentgardener ( talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

And I do not want or expect any commitments on content issues. I am looking for you to stop section blanking. I am sorry to be so blunt but you are just way, way out of line here. We can work out a much better alternative. You should work with me to do that. You will be happy with the results. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the good-faith intent. But still, I have to ask: don't you think I might have somewhat of a point that you could find better sources? Let's take on the issue that got the IPAB article locked for a month. As for the inclusion or exclusion of death panel related material at IPAB, I'm still not against a sentence, or maybe two, in the political debate section. But the idea it deserves an entire section is overkill, in my opinion. And I'm not doing a little negotiation dance here either. =) That's really about all I can see that is worthy in the article. If you are convinced more (such as a section) is necessary then it seems we need to find others. Jesanj ( talk) 18:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you are going overkill on some of the sources but better sources have never hurt anyone. The Death Panel thing is just another reason why we have to compartmentalize. And I have not been too good about making a detailed case. Let's talk about that one more and see if we can make some progress then try to bring in some third parties. So I am going to do some research on positive comments/reports on IPAB and add them. We can put language here and get the admins to approve. Then let's break down all the issues and talk about them in a structured and compartmentalized way. Then we can talk editing process. I am of the make it a little better first, let others fix it some more, and then I fix it some more school but maybe you have different ideas. The point is that all this can be worked out. Just no section blanking. And an PhRMA you really jumped the gun. I already have secondary sources ready to flesh out each issue section and make it more nuanced. These things take time and you can't just tear down content and start an edit war because it is not perfect. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm curious. Are you getting the idea for each section from PhRMA's website and then looking for secondary sources? Jesanj ( talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 02:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that is a bad idea. It is an example of selection bias. Jesanj ( talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

As I see it, it doesn't make sense to add an access date to cite news templates if there is no url given because the accessdate represents the "Date when the news item was accessed, if it was found online. Should be in the same format as the rest of the article..." Jesanj ( talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have moved Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11 to User:Intermittentgardener/sandbox. As an experienced editor, you really ought to know better than to launch unreferenced stubs straight into mainspace. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

To User talk:Intermittentgardener's defense, think that there was some urgency involved in this article because there are incorrect incoming links to Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13. Andries ( talk) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Since we are all talking, do you think we should have separate articles for the Yoga 11 and Yoga 13? They seem a lot like variants of the same product and not every source is even using the Yoga 11 and Yoga 13 terms. Most just refer to the Yoga and when I see Lenovo advertising on TV they also refer to just the Yoga. What are your thoughts? Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I suggest to have two articles for the time being. I dunno the differences except from the software and the screen size. Andries ( talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I don't know either. Do you think the Lenovo is analogous to the MacBook Air? There is only one article for that despite the various models. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Masdar's corporate logo.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Lenovo Vibe X Intermittentgardener ( talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Lenovologo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:NPOVN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.155.168 ( talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.155.168 ( talk) 07:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

You are very, very tiresome. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

And you are very, very impetuous to Wikipedia guidelines. But, I see you have your cronies here at Wikipedia. It is now entirely clear to me why the academic world holds Wikipedia to no regard and a place to be mislead. It's been taken over by Tea Party activists trying to rewrite history. -- 50.128.155.168 ( talk) 06:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Perhaps before reverting an edit by an admin like Dougweller ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) it would be better to reach consensus on the talk page. Simply leaving comments in the edit summary isn't generally sufficient where there is a conflict like this.

Now, I'm not saying that an admin's edits are better than a non-admin, but you can bet that an admin has a pretty firm understanding of our policies and since that edit has been previously reverted by you, continuing to do so looks a whole lot like edit warring or perhaps attempts to own the article. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think he just confused two summaries of completely different edits. I left him a note at his talk page. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Good idea. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

FYI here is the note I left: "I think you reverted me by mistake at Airlines for America. If you look at my edit summaries you will see that I removed the labor relations section because it was unreliably sourced, not because of the bit about A4A supposedly being a union. The original site cited is not available but you can see it through the Way Back Machine. See here. I think it is pretty safe to say that an advocacy site for a labor union cannot possibly be reliable source for this material. Also, you will see that the edit summary you reference is only for the little chunk of text about A4A being a union. See my two edits here and here. Thanks! " I only reverted because it was pretty clear to me he had just clicked on the wrong diff for the edit summary he cited. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Whether or not an AFL-CIO site is an advocacy site seems immaterial in this case as we are talking about events, not opinions. I'm sure that Intermittentgardener can find another source for this if he doesn't like the source that exists (and I can't see anything at the link above, so maybe it does need another source that is more easily accessible.) Now if the actual facts are being challenged, that's another issue and needs to be discussed here. I agree it was pointless to mention the not being a union issue as I agree with that (although it has some similarities to a union). Dougweller ( talk) 16:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, the user who posted this content has a horrible history of making stuff up and misrepresenting sources. Also, the sources that we use are always relevant. You can take the same set of facts and make them look very, very different depending on your POV. That is why the policy on reliable sources states and explicit preferences for secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking. That said, I have found some other sources on this and I will rewrite the material accordingly. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenovo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Path and Uber ( 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) 08:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Airlines for America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in revenue, double the amount for 2002. A4A staffers handed out air-sickness bags and leaflets at [Washington Reagan National Airport] asking "Are higher taxes on air travel making you sick?"

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Insert non-formatted text here

Your recent edits on User talk:50.128.155.168 can be considered harassment. You need to get over this grudge and move along. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I just read that policy. I was surprised to learn that selectively removing negative info from your own talk page was kosher. Now I do. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not prohibited. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. You can find all kinds of negative info about me in my archives. :) Toddst1 ( talk) 20:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a ref for the debunking of the Lenovo ban from classified networks? Thanks. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Yup. [4] lots more like this from major publications. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply

That actually says, "The Register has since received confirmation that what was actually reported - that the allied security/intelligence community doesn't use Lenovo gear to handle sensitive data - is correct." But given the anonymous nature of the sources, and the vagueness of the "threat," I'll go along with leaving this out. Thanks. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lenovo smartphones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• >[http://www.financialexpress.com/news/lenovo-creates-a-big-mobile-buzz/1228658?rheditorpick]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lenovo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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) 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 14, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle ( 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, 10.4.0.34 ( talk) 09:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alliant Techsystems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XM25 ( 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) 08:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Masdar City page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masdar City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muscat ( 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) 08:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alliant Techsystems, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deep space and Lockheed ( 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) 08:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alliant Techsystems may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The [[AGM-88 HARM | AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile}} (AARGM) is an upgrade to the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). The AARGM is the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Lenovo Flex 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenovo A10 tablet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android ( 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) 08:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lenovo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• started offering the device for sale on its website without a formal product announcement. <ref>http://www.cnet.com/news/lenovos-smartband-doesnt-just-track-your-fitness-it-unlocks-your-computer/<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Your reasoning is invalid primarily because they add context to the article, and because you clearly have a different definition of the word "promotion" than other people. Also, many of your edits violate MOS:DATES, primarily because Motorola still has close ties to the United States. I don't know why you're only editing like this on Lenovo-related articles (and noticeably, your edits only REALLY started to occur right after the acquisition was finalized), but please stop just running around making edits like that without allowing other people to evaluate them. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Motorola Mobility. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Actifio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages EMC and South Portland. 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) 10:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Talk:South Beach_Diet".The discussion is about the topic South Beach Diet. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vocativ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon. 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) 09:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

See the specific discussion here: [5] Chestmas ( talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

For the record, Chestmas was blocked as a sock puppet. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 18:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, it looks like the problem was taken care of before I could get involved. I know absolutely nothing about the subject or the people involved but it's generally pretty easy to spot POV edits and sockpuppets so I am keeping a half an eye on the article. SQGibbon ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Abu Dhabi Fund for Development

Hello. I had installed a joke plugin in my browser and forgot about it. You don't have to believe me, but I'm an experienced editor with an established edit history, so at least WP:AGF and judge the edits on their own merits. "known vandal" isn't a valid reason for reverting an otherwise valid edit anyway, this isn't WP:BANREVERT or anything. Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I see that and now believe you. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 10:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vocativ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward R. Murrow Award. 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) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I have looked through your edits at the article and the commentary at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_a_court_brief_to_back_a_claim_that_same-sex_couples_shouldn.27t_adopt. It is clear to me that a. your edits exhibit a strong POV; and b. what you consider acceptable sourcing is soundly rejected by others.

The POV is clear in this word choice of "scientific study-supported belief" (which is also poor writing and probably epistemologically unsound) and your removal of the SPLC commentary. It may well be true that the SPLC is a political pressure group, but that goes for the ADF as well. The SPLC is important enough to be widely cited in the media and on Wikipedia: their criticism is deemed notable enough for inclusion. Your edit warring over this content is yet another indication that you let your personal point of view override consensus and behavioral guidelines. As for the sourcing, the discussion at RSN is clear. Primary sourcing can be acceptable, but it can never be used to confirm as factual the kind of non-neutral statement you want it to support.

I see that this is not the first time you are accused of a POV that inhibits neutral editing; I think you should have had ample time to learn how to edit more in agreement with our guidelines and policies. If you continue with such POV editing and/or the attendant edit warring, I will have no choice but to block you, which I'd rather not do. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• BTW, I do agree with your removal of Lisa Biron's name from that article--her article only states that she was associated with the club, and that is not strong enough in such sensitive material. Drmies ( talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Intermittentgardener,

Thanks for providing this feed-back. I would like to react to your comment by suggesting another heading. Would it be appropriate to do so as a reply to your comment on that page, or should that discussion be continued on the Talk page of the disputed article? Thanks. Lklundin ( talk) 12:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that you boldly made a change to the disputed article, which has pretty much made my above question obsolete. Thanks. Lklundin ( talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, having problems with the formatting of the title of this page? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Very much so. Can you help? It needs to be in Italics to conform to the style guide. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I have moved the page back to DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. vs. The United States of America. If you want the page title to use italics, add {{italic title}} to the page. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you sooooo much! Intermittentgardener ( talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike has fixed it :) -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:ATKTRANSPARENTLOGO.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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. Thank you. Brianhe ( talk) 13:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.  Brianhe ( talk) 20:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Intermittentgardener. I work on COI issues a great deal in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing.

I want to make sure you are aware of three things, and ask you to reply.

• First the community is starting to look carefully at your editing history, and there are some legs to the claims being made at COIN, based on your editing.
• Second, I want to make sure you are aware of the policy on paid editing.
• If you are not aware of the history of paid editing scandals in Wikipedia, which have brought into disrepute entities that have done them, and which actually drove the amendment of the Terms of Use by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation and the creation of the PAID policy, please see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia; if you are not aware of it you might also want to read WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms.

Please reply, and make any disclosures that should be made per WP:PAID and WP:COI. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Intermittentgardener. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:ActifioLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Concerned Women for America.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply