User talk:Rodchen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

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. 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 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am doing. I have discussed it and explained it on the discussion page, sought consensus, and requested help on the notice board. Rodchen (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are attempting discussion on the talk page. That's good, but please note that the 3 revert rule is a bright line rule with few exceptions (none of which appear to apply here). You have now made three reversions to the page today, so please do not make any further reversions if your latest edits get undone.--Kubigula (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been attempting to discuss this from the very beginning, with little to no success. Others have been willing to 'undo', but not discuss it. Gamaliel finally made a suggestion of breaking up the edits, so I am attempting that now. I will see if there is any objection of this piece of the edit and then move on to the next piece of the edit. So rest assured I was not planning on making any more edits to the page immediately, but awaiting to see if there is any objection to this first edit, and then after some time, make the next edit. Can I get a clarification however on the '3 revert' rule? First, is three reverts 'breaking the rule' or is three reverts 'the maximum number allowed'? Second, is it a '3 revert' rule, or a '3 revisions' rule? I have made 2 reverts and 1 revision. Would another revision (I am not planning on doing it, but curious for future reference) invoke a 3revert violation? Rodchen (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts is the maximum allowed - anything more almostly certainly leads to a block. The definition of a revert is pretty broad - it includes undoing in whole or in part another person's edit. Please note that while three reverts per day is the bright line, there is no entitlement to three reverts. Ongoing edit warring is detrimental to Wikipedia and may lead to blocks or article protection even if 3RR is not technically violated. That being said, I do again acknowledge your attempts at discussion. Gamaliel's suggestion is a good one - do the edits one at a time and see what is really the issue.--Kubigula (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this editor appears to be the same as User:219.144.166.185, who was blocked for edit warring on March 30.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kubigula for your help. I am relatively new to Wikepedia, and one of my early frustrations is editors who refuse to interact with me, so I appreciate you actually taking the time to read and answer my question. I have found a few editors such as you, but I have also found several who refuse dialoge and working toward reading consensus. By the way, I don't 'appear' to be editor 219.144.166.185. I am that editor. I have never done much editing in Wikepedia, so figured I really didn't need an account. But this experience editing Boxer's article has motivated me to sign up and get an account. It gets frustrating making edits improving articles, only to have them redone. Rodchen (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rodchen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your suggestion is EXACTLY what I have been doing. Did you read the discussion page? You will see I have been doing exactly what you suggested. I did though just now accidently post on the Boxer talk page without my name being included. Sometimes I get bumped off of wikepedia and need to sign in again. So this last post I made does not properly document that it was my post. I would like to make sure other editors know that that comment is mine. Rodchen (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As before, I am glad that you are discussing the issues. However, discussion does not give you license to edit war - please let the discussion and consensus develop. I cautioned you that 3RR is a bright line rule, and you clearly crossed it. Please take this break to review the policies on edit warring. Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wifione, I would greatly appreciate your advice. Please look and read through the discussion page on the Boxer talk page. I have responded and accepted other editors helpful advice, but I really feel your action is unwarrented. Can you explain why you did it? The above 'message' seems like a generic comment, because your suggestions are EXACTLY what I have been doing as you can see and read from the Boxer discussion page. This is a summary of what happened recently: I suggest making a title change from Reproductive right to Abortion. It is objected to because editors say the paragraph includes more than just abortion. I point out that the paragraphs do deal with abortion and never once mention reproductive rights. Then the other editor changes the paragraph from abortion to reproductive rights. This all happens. This is unfair.

I would appreciate your help though making a comment on the Boxer talk page attributing the one comment to me. It was from me. I have no desire to hide that, and it was an honest mistake, which I don't want other editors to feel I am trying to do something inappropriate. Rodchen (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not enough just to comment on the talk page, you need to listen to what editors are telling you there. Your changes don't have consensus. As you are the one wanting to make the change, it's up to you to establish a new consensus that the changes are correct. The BRD cycle leads to discussion, not edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Rodchen. The block has been implemented as I noticed that after having been warned earlier of edit warring, you again crossed the 3RR line in the past 24 hours, and then commented (in my view, post haste) that you have chosen not to edit war any more. If you would like to resume discussions on the article's talk page, my suggestion would be that you should do that after 24 hours once your block has expired. It would allow you time to reanalyze your actions and acknowledge the edit mistakes you may have committed in the recent past. Please do realize that I have analyzed the reporting editor's and other editors' contributions as well, and quite comprehensively on the article in question, including the talk page discussions (which are a proactive step by you, and should be continued once you are unblocked either automatically or by any other administrator). I shall not act upon your unblock request and would wait for other administrators to respond to it. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate your suggestion on what I should do next. You say continue the discussion on the article's talk page, but that was not accomplishing anything, and in fact resulted in an editor from making a controversial and unhelpful edit. So therefore I ask, what should I do? What can I do to solve this issue. You suggest 'resume discussions', but as you can tell from reading the discussion page, that was not accomplishing anything. So what is your suggestion? Rodchen (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get unblocked, attempt to discuss on the talk page in order to reach consensus. If you feel that the majority of editors are not agreeable to your point of view, that means that the consensus on the page is going against you - in other words, you should back off from arguing with them. In case you feel that consensus on that particular talk page goes against Wikipedia's various editing policies, you could go for the dispute resolution process. That helps in many cases. Feel free to write for any further assistance. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes discussions take a few days, sometimes they stretch on forever, sometimes people are stubborn, sometimes discussions are unproductive, often they don't go your way. That's the price of collaboration. All of us here have to come to grips with that. The 3RR applies to all of us, and unproductive discussion or stubborn editors do not give you license to violate that rule. So what do you do? Continue the discussion. Start an request for comment to bring in new editors. Move on to some other article for a while. Gamaliel (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione, what do you think I should do once I am unblocked that will solve this issue? You have read the discussion page, right? You have seen the views and opinions expressed. You have seen how I have tried to build consensus. Should I go immediately to dispute resolution? I don't want to 'rack it up a notch', but Wikepedia is committed to using neutral words. Do you think discussing it on the discussion page will help? Our latest discussion actually directly led to an editor inserting MORE biased words in the article (as you can tell), so discussion was actually detrimental. I would greatly appreciate your advice regarding what is the next step that you think I should take that has the highest probability of success and abides by Wikepedia standards and guidelines and procedures. Rodchen (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss first; try dispute resolution later. Don't worry about more 'biased' words creeping in. If it goes out of control, the dispute resolution process does help, so don't worry. In my opinion, I think the editors you are discussing with are quite sane and logical in their discussions. So assume good faith and keep the discussions on for the time being. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? The dispute though is about 'biased' words. Right? Rodchen (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2011 (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. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rodchen. Admins are familiar with the kinds of disputes that break out at political articles. Defenders of the politician often wish to remove anything negative, regardless of how well sourced it may be. Please recall the 3RR case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive155#User:Rodchen reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result:24 hours) in which you were blocked for 24 hours. You are now assumed to be familiar with our policy on WP:Edit warring. If another block is issued, it will most likely be for a longer time. Please wait for consensus to form on the talk page before reverting again at Jim DeMint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fortunately there is no 'editing war' going on. I made an edit, which another editor undid, asking for an explaination, and I provided the explaination. So at the moment I have only done one revert. But I do appreciate your concern for me. That is very gracious of you. Rodchen (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand why you made the comment - warning me of a possible editing war with Muboshgu since he undid my edit. Rest assured I now am aware of the 3 Revert policy, and have invited him to discuss it on DeMint's talk page. Rodchen (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've now removed the same pre-existing material from the article three times. That makes three reverts. Plus, you continued to revert after an admin warning. Your rationale sounds unconvincing: "Remove non-noteworthy and repeated comments." Unclear that there was any repetition of material elsewhere in the article. You're getting close to a block, in my opinion. If you think the material could be presented more briefly, why not propose a shorter version on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Yes I have now reverted twice. I removed non-noteworthy material. When it was reinserted, asking for a reason, I removed it again explaining the edit. When it was redone again, I reverted a second time, inviting that second editor to make comments on the discussion page. I understand 3 reverts is allowed, but that there is no automatic right to three, but I have only made two reverts, and have no plan or intention of doing another revert. Thank you for your concern.

Regarding removing repeated material, the original article stated twice he was not going to run again for the Senate. I saw no reason to have that in the article twice, so I removed one of the comments. Rodchen (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but I sometimes forget, so I have to go back and put them in later. Where did I forget to sign it? Rodchen (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot is bot, i.e. a computer program that monitors Wikipedia and automatically performs certain actions (in this case adding "unsigned" signatures to edits and informing users about the custom of signing). It's a clever program, but no AI, and thus will not be able to answer your question in this form. I don't know if it keeps a log of what actions it took with respect to which user, but you can probably find out starting at its user page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the summary of "Clean up intro" you are deleting information from articles. If you don't think the info belongs in the intro then you should move it. If you think it should be deleted then you should say, "deleting info". The "clean up intro" summary is misleading. I am inclined to under your edits as unhelpful removal of information. Is there a reason to let them stand?   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the info I am deleting, is included elsewhere in the article, so I am not 'deleting' it in the sense that I am removing it from site, but I am cleaning up the opening paragraph of senators, to make them more readable, to make them more consistent with each other, and to remove details which are better included deeper in the article. So therefore I think 'cleaning up intro' is a good explaination. As you see my edits, if you think 'deleting info' better describes my action, I can use that phrase. Rodchen (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, you're at 3RR on Carl Levin. I'll echo some of the comments above, I don't really understand what you're doing, and you're not explaining it very well. As per the Bold/Recert/Discuss cycle of Wikipedia, if you make a bold edit (which pretty much any edit to the lede of a political article would be, if someone else reverts it you should go to the talk page and discuss it. If you have a specific reason for making those changes, it would help to have it explained on the talk page in detail, rather than just giving the same edit summary on every article. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make yourself familiar with WP:LEAD: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." Also look at the "Length" section there: leads of three or four paragraphs are the suggested guideline when an article is of more than 30,000 characters. So to take one example, Chuck Schumer, your change violated both of these points: It made the lead too short and it rendered the lead useless as a summary of the full article. I would strongly suggest you stop making these edits; you are doing damage to the project. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question on my talk page, WTR is correct above. The lead of an article is a brief summary of the entire article, there's no need to remove information simply because it appears somewhere else. The important stuff should be summarized. As for making things consistent, not every biography subject is as noteworthy as another. Dayewalker (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand one will never get consistency across the board. But I also don't understand why the month one senator became senior senator is noteworthy enough to have in their lead, while not in other senators. Rodchen (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add similar information to other BLPs, rather than deleting long-standing information from other? Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that's the problem people have with your edits? No one cares if you remove the month someone became senior senator, it's your removal of much more significant information that is at issue. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't they put back the 'significant info' that they think should be there rather than undoing the edit? What significant info did I remove from the Schumer article? Rodchen (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two-way street. I've done this several times and you've reverted me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done what several times? When did I ever revert an edit of yours (with the exception of reverting you reverting my edit)? Rodchen (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done exactly what you suggested - "put back the 'significant info' that they think should be there rather than undoing the edit" - and you have reverted me on Harry Reid and perhaps other articles, but I don't feel like checking further and the one example should make my point. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not wanting to kill a dead horse, if you review the Reid article recent history, you will notice twice you reverted me completely, while I never did! And you will also notice I have not modified your last edit at all (even though it was undoing mine!) Rodchen (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty selective look at the edit history. My first edit was a complete revert of your edits, which you also reverted. My next edit was to do exactly as you suggested, to put back in some of the information which I thought was significant. Your next edit not only reverted all of this, it removed even more from the intro! My second revert was to revert this edit. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that on your second edit you did exactly as I suggested, and I appreciate that. But your first and third were reverts, which we also both agree to. (And of course there are times when revert is appropriate.) But if you look at the log, you will see I did not revert, but re-edited.

But anyway, my initial question was 'When did I ever revert an edit of yours (with the exception of reverting you reverting my edit)?' Harry Reid would be an example of that exception.

Look at the recent history of the Schumer article and tell me which you honestly think is better. Rodchen (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you "re-edit" to remove every edit from another editor, that's still a revert. I'll have a look at Schumer in a bit. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stuff in the lead of the Schumer article, like election percentages, could be trimmed, but I think your edit chopped way too much important info out. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodchen, you are correct that some of that the leads of politician BLPs are woefully inconsistent and sometimes have detailed information that doesn't really belong there. But your solution – to reduce the leads in size to make them all consistent, throwing important information out in the process – is even worse. Please read WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Pretend a reader is only going to look at the lead and then not read anymore (which probably happens a lot). Your version of the Chuck Schumer lead simply doesn't get the job done. If that's all that someone finds out about Schumer, they haven't learned much. I'd advise you to look at some of the politician BLPs in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Politics and government and Wikipedia:FA#Politics and government biographies (all of which have undergone reviews to earn their status) and study those leads. Examples would be Charles Rangel, Mitch Daniels, Geraldine Ferraro, Mark Hatfield, John McCain, John F. Tierney, Mitt Romney, and so forth. All of these have lead sections that fulfill the length and content guidelines of WP:LEAD. So if you're looking for consistency in the current senator articles, try making all of them similar to these GA and FA articles. Then instead of being criticized, you'll get a pageful of barnstars ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I notice your comments about US Presidents Inaugurals. I remember after the death of President Kennedy was announced, the news media mentioned that Vice President Lyndon Johnson was seen leaving Parkland Hospital and that he would be sworn in shortly. The term inaugural was never used in that case but I suspect the term has been used interchangeably. It is interesting that Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon Johnson contacted Washington DC at the time of their swearing in ceremonies in 1923 and 1963-Coolidge contacted Chief Justice Taft and Johnson contacted Attorney General Robert Kennedy about how to do this. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new rewrite has been made to the Barbara Boxer Walsh incident. Since you commented on it in the past, I'd like to get your input. --BETA 08:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Keith Olbermann appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Welcome back. SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be refering to me adding to the word 'liberal' to Keith Olberman and Chris Matthew's style of being a political commentator. I added this since 'conservative' was added included on those on the right. Would you like to explain your objection? Rodchen (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As those are the only changes you've made with this account in some time, that should be fairly clear. Your chosen description was not sourced. Please see the talk pages for both articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is opposition to identifying Olberman as a liberal political commentator, but no objection to identifying Glenn Beck as a conservative political commentator. Why? Rodchen (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions you added did not cite reliable sources. If you feel there are other articles that do not meet this standard, feel free to address those concerns on the respective articles' talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look at the references at the end of the paragraph, those references identify him as a left-winger (liberal) but does not identify him as a political commentator. So it seems like you should have deleted the 'political commentator' reference but left in (not pun intended) the liberal reference. Rodchen (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions you added did not cite reliable sources. If you feel there are other articles that do not meet this standard, feel free to address those concerns on the respective articles' talk pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now clearly sourced it, but is still being removed. If sourcing was really your objection, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. If sourcing was simply what you said was your objection, but you really had an agenda objection, then I won't request your participating in our discussion. Rodchen (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your POV-pushing at Keith Olbermann. A consensus for "has been described as" exists, and your edit warring goes against that consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus (or even extensive discussion) yet. And two 'undo' edits each clearly explained over a five day period is hardly 'edit warring'. Rodchen (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive discussion has already happened. The liberal label issue has cropped up a few times before - please search the talk page archive in future. And whenever you revert the same thing more than once when there is no consensus for change, it is edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate regarding the term 'liberal' has reached consensus, and I agree with it. The current debate regarding 'considered' or 'described' has not been discussed. Once consensus is reached on one topic, discussion may begin and continue on another topic, including reverting, without false accusations of edit warring. Rodchen (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So discuss it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus not to violate Wikipedia policy, which "considered" most certainly does. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. How does using the word 'considered' on the Olberman article violate policy, but on the O'Reiley article, it does not violate the policy? Rodchen (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Considered" is a weasel word. In this context, you are trying to use it in "Wikipedia's voice". Again, I don't care about the Billo article so stop asking me about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. Rodchen (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 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. Obama related articles are on probation, and under a 1RR restriction. You have gone beyond the scope of edit warring and have been reverted on this issue by several editors. Stop it. Consensus on the Talk page is clear. If you wish to change consensus, do that on the Talk page. Do not keep inserting your preferred changes. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section on the talk page of Sam Brownback regarding recent edits you have made. --Joe Jarvis (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Conversion therapy. Your edits have been reverted. Discuss the changes on the article's talk page and achieve consensus before making them again. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. The article "Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says" is an Associated Press story by Malcolm Ritter on 9 May 2001. Deliberately introducing text that the article is from 2015 is a malicious misrepresentation of the facts. -- Callinus (talk) 09:20, 4 September 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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]