User talk:CJK

World War II

Hi, I've just started a discussion of the material you've recently boldly added to this article at Talk:World War II#Recent additions of material which I'd encourage you to participate in. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve Content Dispute on Alger Hiss Talk before reverting again

CJK

Please resolve content differences with Joegoodfriend on the Alger Hiss talk page before reverting any more content. An RFC on the specific issues might be useful to gain more community input to the dispute. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you haven't been paying close attention, but the precise reason why I am reverting is because the content dispute is unresolved and making zero progress. CJK (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The continuous reverting isn't helpful, regardless of which version each one of you deem relevant. The RFC on the talk page doesn't really convey the question very well, as one editor has already pointed out. My advice would be to close the current RFC and carefully craft a new RFC with a very specific question that others may address. I would do this in collaboration with Joegoodfriend. I think both of you should work together to formulate the question without inserting your individual biases. If both of you can agree on the substance of the question, then other editors may be willing to weigh-in and recommend a solution. You can draft the new RFC in your user space and seek others advice before posting to the talk page. I will gladly help in that. Once posted, I would also advertise the RFC widely in appropriate projects. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll inform Joegoodfriend of this response. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. (Hohum ^@) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iraq War 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:

nuclear program, but only after numerous Iraqi attempts to hide much of it throughout 1991. <ref> [http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779.htm IAEA Report 8 October 1997 </ref> In 1995 it was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iraq War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fall of Baghdad (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) 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. (Hohum ^@) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛらむだΧかいΣしぐま²¹ 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Your recent editing history at Iraq War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 155blue (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute

You have my deep sympathy. I was there too. The thing is: there are no efficient dispute resolution procedures in Wikipedia, which even compelled me to write an essay. If there are entrenched sides out there and the discussion is a mile long, the best you can do is to walk away and edit something else. Trust me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, inefficient dispute resolution processes. What exactly are you looking for in the Hiss piece? What do you think the piece's greatest failings are the way things sit? Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like. I don't think arguing back and forth 1-against-4 or whatever is going on there is the best way forward. Let me know what you're seeing and we'll see if we can ratchet down the heat and get things fixed up in a manner that everyone can live with... Carrite (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I would rather not take part in this discussion myself, beyond a few comments I already made. There are two serious problems with inefficient dispute resolution. First, it takes a lot of time, and the time would be better spent by fixing something which does not cause anyone's objections. More important, taking part in dispute resolution (and even writing about unsavory characters like Hiss) is not an enjoyable experience. I personally had a much better time after switching to editing pages about contemporary singer-songwriters and listening their songs. In the process, I found some people I did not even know about, but whose work is extraordinary. This even compelled me to resume writing poetry myself (using my native language of course), something that I did not do for many years. Good luck with dispute resolution! My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my page. Let's keep our talk there if you don't mind, it's less apt to blow up into a grease fire there, I think. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not have anything else to add except that based on my experience, no one should waste his/her time to discuss a page that is currently under indefinite protection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need third party view

Hi CJK. I tried to add the following to the Al Sharpton article under the "Controversy" heading, but it was reverted. I was wondering it you would give a third party view on if it should be included? Thanks in advance for any input Truthwillneverdie (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Heights Riot

In 1991, Sharpton delivered the eulogy at the funeral of Gavin Cato, a black child who was killed when a car in a rabbi's motorcade accidentally veered off the road. In the eulogy, Sharpton complained “It's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. ...Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. ...All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'. Pay for your deeds.” Following the funeral, black youths stabbed a rabbinical student to death, looted stores, and beat Jews in the streets. The Anti-Defamation League accused Sharpton of helping to incite anti-Semitism in the Crown Heights conflict. ^[1]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iraq War. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. 155blue (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of twelve hours for continued edit-warring and disruption against consensus at Iraq War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Consider this somewhat of a warning shot. It is extremely obvious that you are fueling a slow-motion edit-war at Iraq War. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt initially as you were discussing on the talk page, but it's increasingly obvious that you won't take no for an answer. -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I did today was restore the NPOV tag which had been wrongly removed. Your block unfortunately is based on a false pretext.

What is "extremely obvious" to me is that my contributions have been constantly deleted wholesale by people who refuse to engage in good-faith discussion. What would be constructive is for you to state your objections in detail if you have any, rather than abuse your power to favor one side of the dispute.

CJK (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Iraq War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Swarm ^X 19:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my more detailed comments here as well. Swarm ^X 19:09, 23 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your block is not justified by the facts. There was no justification whatsoever in his revert of my edits, which took into account the discussion on the talk page. The user reverting my edit has made almost no effort to engage in serious conflict resolution as can be seen by a perusal of that page. How exactly am I supposed to contribute when I get blocked for reverting deletions? The vast majority of my 16,000 character edit has never been disputed in the first place, yet he insists on a total deletion, even when I went out of my way to compromise. Other users have also refused to respond to me, one simply decreed that the discussion was over. CJK (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request fails to address you violation of edit warring. From a review of the talk page, there appears to be considerable consensus against the change. Please review WP:Guide to appealing blocks. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:15, 23 July 2013 (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.

You are wrong, the so-called "consensus" consists of people saying they do not like my edits but they cite very few specific reasons. The few specifics they did object to were altered by myself to make it acceptable to them. You cannot blame me for undoing deletions when opposing editors simply refuse to engage in a good faith discussion of the issues. Undoing the unjustified deletion of my contributions cannot be equated with edit warring, which implies that both parties are ignoring the dispute resolution process. I have engaged in extensive talk page discussion over relatively trivial complaints of certain aspects, and have been rewarded by endless waiting for responses days on end until a revert gets their attention. CJK (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. -TFD (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Iraq War does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! (Hohum ^@) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Please don't report users to WP:AIV unless their edits are clearly vandalism. Problematic edits in content disputes and edit warring are best handled at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alger Hiss

I assume you saw my query to you on the talk page. I am going to go ahead and unprotect the article, as it's not fair to other editors to permanently lock down an article for a local content dispute. If you intend to edit there, I encourage you to do so with caution, making sure that your edits reflect consensus on the talk page, and not edit warring. I will expect you and the others to follow WP:BRD, but remember that even "Bold" edits should be working toward consensus. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, while reviewing the talk page, I noticed that you almost never indent your comments, making it hard to read and follow the thread of discussions. On Wikipedia it is customary to thread discussions using indentation. If you're not sure how it works, see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. (See also: WP:Tendentious editing#One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third illegitimate block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Attack on Pearl Harbor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:03, 16 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I undid a revert a total of two times, which can hardly be described as "edit warring" and, even if it was, would certainly not be worthy of a week long block. My edits were reverted for reasons that were blatantly illegitimate--falsely claiming that they were of no relevance to the article. They have already been restored by someone else in recognition of that fact. I am prepared to discuss the issue on the article talk page if I am unblocked. CJK (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And indeed it might not have been edit warring ... if you didn't have a record like this. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2013 (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.

So you admit that it wasn't really edit warring, but since others have (also falsely) accused me of edit warring in the past, the block will be continued. Your abuse of power is duly noted.

CJK (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you realize that it is possible to edit war without crossing the 3RR line. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you realize that two reverts on one day =/= an edit war.

CJK (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Program

Hello I noticed you commented on the Phoenix Program talk page a few time with quite a lot of info and you seemed to be quite knowledgeable on the subject. So thought I might ask you if you would like to contribute to the page. The page needs a lot of reworking and you seem to no what your talking about so what do you think? Stumink (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have complained about the sources used, but I don't think I've done enough research into the matter to make my own contributions to the page yet.

CJK (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks

In your last two replies during our discussion at Talk:Contras, you accused me of being unaware of some of the more basic facts concerning the Contra War [1] and being interested in propaganda [2]. Please stop these ad hominem attacks. They're unproductive and incivil, and I will report it if you don't stop. Try to focus on the content, not on me as a person. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hutchinson (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) 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

You have now made 3 reverts within 24 hours and if you exceed that you could be blocked. TFD (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please avoid making personal attacks as you did here, when you accused another editor of vandalism. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked. TFD (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adolf Hitler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reichstag

American Revolutionary War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plan of Union (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) 08:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monarchy of Britain (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) 08:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig (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) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plan of Union (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, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are still using the belligerent (and unthreaded) talk page style as well, as in here. Please remember that editing Wikipedia requires collaboration. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you violated WP:EW again and re-added a slightly modified version. The next time you do this without clear consensus on the talk page, you will be reported at the appropriate noticeboard for administrative intervention. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir Henry Clinton (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, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown. 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) 08:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World War I casualties may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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) 18:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Years' War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Vincent. 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) 10:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic wars

You added as long 700 word section to the Napoleonic wars article entitled "prelude." I moved it to the talk page because it breaks the Wikipedia rules: it only uses an 1803 Primary source. You need to use some of the many many reliable secondary sources, and then it can be restored. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Drug War

Hello, CJK. Thanks in advance for your interest in the Mexican Drug War. I saw your recent updates at the page and was wondering if you were willing to take your differences with the IP user to the article's talkpage. The updates he/she made were backed up by reliable sources, and I know that that information may be credibly because I've read it before. I saw your claim that the user made an original research update, but he/she provided sources (it would thereby only be original research if the information added is not backed up by the sources). Anyhow, I've been really lazy with the Mexican Drug War article, and I want to thank you for keeping an eye on it. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

Please read Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND. I'm sure you've read it before, but it wouldn't hurt for you to read it again. I'll take down the 3RR template - I'm sure you know what you're doing, and what will happen if you continue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Talk:Socialism. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.} --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:Socialism, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Socialism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Inserting defamatory comments about a living person is not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia, whether in an article or on a talk page. If you repeat this offence, you could find yourself blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Socialism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Article: Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main Article: Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Since you had some involvement with the Main Article: Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email regarding Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss

I received your note but was only involved briefly in trying to work on the Hiss page, so I'm not in any way an experienced user and don't know where I was attacked. I appreciate your note but can point me to the reference? Jeffkisseloff (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Jeff KisseloffJeffkisseloff (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Valerie Plame?

https://valerieplameforcongress.com/myagenda/ ? EllenCT (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to do Political positions of Valerie Plame I would love to, but I have a topic ban on economics, so let's say I draft it for your COI review and WP:AN community topic ban probation appeal? Would you like me to start with an outline devoid of economics? EllenCT (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Hi. Just saw your add to my talk page re Alger Hiss. Thanks. Hopefully any bitterness over that article is over. Peace my friend! Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:: If I may add. Thank you for your apology, CJK, and a happy holiday season to you, too. I confess I have forgotten what we were having a "discussion" (as they say in Italian) about. Cheers! Mballen (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "The Gaffes of Al Sharpton". Retrieved Oct. 7, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1] "The Gaffes of Al Sharpton". Retrieved Oct. 7, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]