Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) |
Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
:Agree with that. I've suggested that he take his changes to the talk page before making them again. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Agree with that. I've suggested that he take his changes to the talk page before making them again. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::...and I would suggest you do the same, please. Talk it out. Sometimes just a simple conversation will settle things. You will see their side and they will see your side and you can find common ground and a happy medium that works. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)</small> |
::...and I would suggest you do the same, please. Talk it out. Sometimes just a simple conversation will settle things. You will see their side and they will see your side and you can find common ground and a happy medium that works. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
== February 2011 == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Lila Rose]]. Users who [[WP:DISRUPT|edit disruptively]] or refuse to [[WP:COLLABORATE|collaborate]] with others may be blocked if they continue.<br> |
|||
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that: |
|||
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block'''. |
|||
# '''Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident'''. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right'''. |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If edit warring continues, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.''' <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Please take a break from this article.'' <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)</small> 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:41, 8 February 2011
Thanks
Thanks for the star. It's an honor. I'll go nail it up on my barn right away. Will Beback talk 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, I appreciate that I'm not the only one who doesn't think that the article should remain static. nonsense!thisSalegispeaking.drivel! 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
TJ article
Thanks for your comment on the TJ article talk page. The discussion has come to stop. Most editors agreed slavery should be discussed (briefly) in the lede, though we couldn't agree on words. I've proposed a new sentence that might be ok to most people (though some might argue to excise his racial views). I'm willing to make any reasonable changes to it. Can you check back to see if how the progress goes (as it happens)? Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
User page
Hey, its your page, do what you want (I have seen other editors add the suspected sock tag in jest) but the banned user tag might confuse a lot of admins. - Haymaker (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the idea, I saw it on an admins page a few minutes ago and found that admin to be still active, thought it was funny so I added it. :) I'll probably add more of those in the future. nonsense!thisSalegispeaking.drivel! 08:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at JohnCD's talk page.
George Allen
There's a section just below with his name and George Allen isn't the sole candidate in the race right now. Right now it's two, but eventually a more and more names are going to declare and all the names would look cluttered. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I just didn't understand the what seemed to be unilateral removal of the sentence. I suppose an argument could be made for only Allen's name being in the lead by using WP:DueWeight but I agree with your edit and will revert my revert. WikiManOne 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at user:sitush's talk page.
Thanks (#2)
Thanks for the offer to be apart of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County, but sadly, I know little on the history of Albemarle County. I mostly focus on the history of Frederick County (which surrounds Winchester). I can help with radio and television though (another one of my areas of work) but that is only so much work I can do. But, again, thank you for considering me and asking. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, well would you be against adding yourself to the project with a note that you will only be involved in broadcast media? WikiManOne 19:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I can slap some templates on the talk pages while I am at it today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't bother with that, I'm asking the bot to do that. So hopefully they'll get around to it soon here. Thanks for the changes to the template/project page btw. I've been meaning to do those things but haven't had a chance. :)WikiManOne 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Too late on the templates. :) I added them about 15 minutes ago. :) No problems on the changes. I see stuff like that and like to tinker with the coding to make it work better. You should see my userpage. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't bother with that, I'm asking the bot to do that. So hopefully they'll get around to it soon here. Thanks for the changes to the template/project page btw. I've been meaning to do those things but haven't had a chance. :)WikiManOne 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I can slap some templates on the talk pages while I am at it today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at JohnCD's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at user:sitush's talk page.
Bad jokes
Hi. I removed the "suspected sockpuppet" and "banned user" templates from your user page. I realize that you added them as a joke, but because they can seriously mislead other users, they are disruptive to Wikipedia. I hope you understand. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Confusion at WP:WPSCH
Hi, could you let me know please, what your onnection is with user:Salegi ? Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
High Schools
By "de facto" i meant, in fact that's what happens. I did a survey once and found that high school articles are only deleted if their existence can not be verified, and its been that way for at least 5 years. There are a few oddball AfDs where a deletion may have occurred, but its very rare. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education ("Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability.") You can see comments I've made to that effect before at [[1]] (March 2010); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everest Public High School (December 2009); see also Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (essay); Wikipedia:Other stuff exists ("Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing."). Hope this helps, it was something I had to learn when I stumbled across it as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page.
Planned Parenthood
Why has there just been a major revert? Sitush (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Someone just added a bunch of minor/local news "controversies" about the subject that made up about a third of the article and constituted undue weight and were not npov in all honesty. That was the reason I started the discussion on the talk page to start over on the controversies section and try to come up with something better. WikiManOne 03:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Anti Abortion
I've reverted its creation as its a WP:POVFORK, please make a move request on Pro Life if you wish to move it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took your suggestion and made the suggestion on the pro-life page, maybe you can weigh in? WikiManOne 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think I need to think about it. This one is tricky, you are right that pro-life is POV, but pro-life is much more commonly used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually your case looks pretty persuasive :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say much more commonly used, it's about the same I think when you look at neutral sources, and most of the uses of "pro-life" are referring to what the organizations claim themselves to be. "Pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news [2], "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 [3] which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. If you look at each use, it is clear that the ones using "pro-life" are generally not quite as neutral as the "anti-abortion" uses. WikiManOne 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually your case looks pretty persuasive :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think I need to think about it. This one is tricky, you are right that pro-life is POV, but pro-life is much more commonly used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page.
Comments at talk:pro-life
Out of interest, have you been reading the archives of that talkpage? The comment about parental notification laws not being "pro-life" except insomuch as they restrict abortion is similar to a comment I made in a previous discussion. As I may have mentioned, I'm paranoid about the appearance of trying to illicitly influence discussion, whether by canvassing, socking, etc. so...I'm not really sure what to say because I don't want to ask you to change your editing habits, and to be honest we edit differently enough that there's not likely to be a problem, but there are a few things you're doing that are similar to things I do. Sorry, this is kind of a stupid comment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't read the archives, there's a lot. I just can't believe that someone would try to argue that parental consent laws are somehow "prolife" and not "anti-abortion", it just makes ZERO sense to me. You did mention that you are careful about avoiding appearing like you are canvassing which is why I have chosen not to notify you of various discussions even if I am notifying both sides. Is there something specific in my editing habits that you are unhappy about? WikiManOne 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a side not, I am thinking that an article on this incident [4] might be appropriate, what do you think? And how should it be titled if it you think it should be included? WikiManOne 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I don't really know why I said anything about it - there's nothing I'm asking you to do. Sorry for bothering you, that was obnoxious.
- It would probably fail the notability criteria (yeah, lots of articles on events do, but I feel the solution is to delete or merge those, not to make more of them). Maybe the information could be put in another article, like self-induced abortion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm.. Yeah, I would definitely like to include it somewhere, its an event that had multiple citations. [5] [6] [7]. I'm thinking I'll start working on an article in my sandbox at some point here and see if it can be worked into a full fledged article. Also, as for the move, I'm definitely hoping it goes through... pro-life is definitely not npov and its being used in multiple articles because that's the article being linked to. WikiManOne 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I suggest you take a break for a while from Talk:Pro-life. The debate will proceed better without so many comments in response to every oppose and you'll get less stressed. For an essay on this idea see Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave. Fences&Windows 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi WikiManOne - Thanks for getting back so promptly on the above issue. I'm new to wikipedia, and realised I made an error - the discussion for the content disagreement was in "history" of the page, not in the "discussion" section.
I suspect I am dealing with vandalism on this issue, as the page keeps getting attacked by an "anon" user, who does not leave comments or talkback.
How do I deal with this person wasting my -and everyone else's - time?
Cheers,
UltraZit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraZit (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to list it at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard as vandalism and make a coherent argument for semi-protection. (I see that the the user making the edits is an IP address so all you need is semi, you and other autoconfirmed (I assume you are) users can still make changes under semi.) Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything. WikiManOne 03:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. Cheers UltraZit (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)UltraZit
ANI Discussion: Vandalism
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
JUSTAVOTE
I've reverted your additions, as you misread WP:JUSTAVOTE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
wqa
I've asked on his talk page what he intends to do. I'm giving him a chance to reply. If he doesn't I'll nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Very cool, thank you for taking care of that, I tried to approach it nicely and he seemed to just blow it off and I have enough confrontation in the areas I edit without taking that on. I appreciate you taking it on. :) Also, notice from your profile that you are a fellow New England fan, disappointing playoffs this year... the good thing about the Patriots is that there's always next year. :) WikiManOne 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anytime. Very disappointing end to the year for the pats, but like you said, hope for better next season.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It really appears (to me) as if these editors constantly assume bad-faith on the part of editors who disagree with their world-views and try to fix bias they have created in articles. I see you've already run into this on his talk page. And yes, Rex Ryan needs to be put in his place. :) WikiManOne 04:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to be Switzerland on the larger conflict here, but I agree wholeheartedly on the Rex Ryan part. It's about midnight here. I'm still hoping to resolve it through discussion, but if not I'll advance it to MFD first thing in the morning.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It really appears (to me) as if these editors constantly assume bad-faith on the part of editors who disagree with their world-views and try to fix bias they have created in articles. I see you've already run into this on his talk page. And yes, Rex Ryan needs to be put in his place. :) WikiManOne 04:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anytime. Very disappointing end to the year for the pats, but like you said, hope for better next season.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note, I've nominated the userpage in question for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenatipo.--Cube lurker (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking care of that, I've become pretty fed up with the whole thing and have posted a brief report on the noticeboard in hopes that something more will be done. WikiManOne 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Project Nicaragua
Hello WikiManOne. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Project Nicaragua, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, I just thought it should be deleted as from the creator's talk page, he had created the same article before with it having been deleted. I'm fine with what you did. :) WikiManOne 06:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it was better sourced this time, or maybe it was just his/her lucky night?
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it was better sourced this time, or maybe it was just his/her lucky night?
Pro-life vs anti-abortion
I do think that you are trying your best at the moment to portray some sort of consensus - and in the case of things such as PP that is almost the worst thing you can do because you will forever be hounded by both "sides". But I am slightly concerned about this and would appreciate your thoughts.
It is not about what views I have on the issue but rather how the outcome is portrayed. I am wary of reverting an edit from someone who, on the face of it, is accepting that their edit may be inappropriate given current events, but is apparently using more than one WP user account. Thoughts? Sitush (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe his use of the second account is within wikipedia guidelines on that as he clearly states it on the the alternate account that it is one, and he isn't trying to hide it to sway consensus, etc. Personally, since this isn't a major issue or flouting explicit consensus, I would probably give him a little time to comment on the article's talk page about it but if he chooses not to, then I would go ahead and revert it. Obviously, you are free to move faster and revert it any time you like and I think you would have support for that.
- I agree that trying to achieve consensus on that particular article is very hard, I'm going to try to keep an eye on it and improve it as I can (I think the current version is much better than the previous) but I'm doing my best not to get involved in any more articles of that genre. WikiManOne 01:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. I'll see what happens over the next day or two. Personally, I prefer the term anti-abortion to pro-life (purely because I feel it is medically/scientifically more correct & therefore dispassionate) but I am keen to get this entire matter stabilised for - oh - at least a week or two. Anything longer than that would be a bonus, for the reasons you give above. I pulled out of the whole thing for a while because I could add nothing to the debate which would be constructive given my lack of knowledge of the finer details. You have persevered and hopefully the article will become stable soon. Meanwhiule, I've managed to do wonders at W & J Galloway & Sons and Churchill Machine Tool Company - amazing what you can get done if you shut yourself off from the controversies! - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the histories and stats on those articles, you certainly have made a miracle there. I agree, anti-abortion is more correct and should be the term used, thus my move request, I just disagree with using a different term than the article is using. (WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT ON THE MOVE REQUEST?!? :P) I think the article has finally stabilized for a while so I'm trying to move the discussion on to general improvement of the article. Obviously, I welcome any and all comments you might have on that. WikiManOne 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. I'll see what happens over the next day or two. Personally, I prefer the term anti-abortion to pro-life (purely because I feel it is medically/scientifically more correct & therefore dispassionate) but I am keen to get this entire matter stabilised for - oh - at least a week or two. Anything longer than that would be a bonus, for the reasons you give above. I pulled out of the whole thing for a while because I could add nothing to the debate which would be constructive given my lack of knowledge of the finer details. You have persevered and hopefully the article will become stable soon. Meanwhiule, I've managed to do wonders at W & J Galloway & Sons and Churchill Machine Tool Company - amazing what you can get done if you shut yourself off from the controversies! - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the Laugh
I seen your post with the sentence "someone's imbecile capabilities" and I busted out laughing. I know it wasn't directed toward me, but it was just awesome. :) Thanks for the laugh, I needed that today. :)
On an unrelated note, I updated the WP:ALVA page, tinkered with the footer and added a quality stats table (which took a couple hours to figure out). All that needs done now is the 1,608 articles in Category:Unassessed_Albemarle_County_articles need to be assessed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, after posting that I thought that it was perhaps out of place under WP:NPA but then decided it was warranted. I like the changes to the ALVA page, I guess we need to start working on assessment then. I asked a bot to mark all the articles for ALVA but at that time, I wasn't planning to have articles assessed for us... Perhaps we should ask the same (or another) bot to run through the articles again and add assessment if they are assessed on other projects? I'm going to try and start taking snapshots of local areas to add to articles as well in the upcoming weeks (whenever I have time on my hands to roam around with a camera...). WikiManOne 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you could probably ask that bot or another one that is available to run through and assess things. The bot normally assess them the same as the already exsisting templates. Let me see if I can find an open bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!
- Awesome, thanks for doing that. :) WikiManOne 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like the person I asked it watch the Super Bowl, along with half of Wikipedia it seems. I also asked at WP:BRQ, so that might speed things along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!
- Awesome, thanks for doing that. :) WikiManOne 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you could probably ask that bot or another one that is available to run through and assess things. The bot normally assess them the same as the already exsisting templates. Let me see if I can find an open bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!
- An Update: Still waiting on a bot request at BRQ and at the user's page as well. Not making much headway, but I am sticking with it. Will let you know if anything happens. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you sign your post.
WikiManOne. I was about to point the uncivil editor to the relevant policies and warn them, but I noticed you didn't sign your ANI post on their talk page. Can you do that first? Thanks a ton.Griswaldo (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done! My bad for missing that, I (incorrectly) assumed it was in the template. WikiManOne 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a good reason for including "did not finish college" in the Persondata? One would think that the subject would be notable for more than that. Also, I think you could have tried to work with the editor who is deleting information, at least by pointing them to relevant sections of the BLP policy. There is no point in antagonizing editors who perhaps aren't fully aware of our guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I pointed them to the WP:COI guidelines, the BLP should be linked from the article talk page. I put that in the person data because I saw it on multiple biographies when I looked it up. I'm not personally attached to the article, just didn't like seeing sourced material being deleted, whoever it was that was deleting it. WikiManOne 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I saw that, but "Look at COI" just isn't that informative. Clearly you are dealing with a persistent editor who has a quarrel, legitimately or not, and that's a problem that has to be dealt with. Giving them a bit more than just a link might be helpful--but that "didn't finish college," that's hardly encyclopedic, and I think you know it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Palin
Hi, note of advice, please don't add thing, is that you know have multiple objectors and when you know discussion is clearly ongoing on the talkpage not edit warring but it is a bit disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:CANVASS
I think the guideline, WP:CANVASS, is sufficiently clear that I couldn't add anything by way of explanation. If you're in doubt then perhaps there's reason to doubt. With many behavioral guidelines, a small, rare, good-faith infraction is not a concern. I don't know enough about the details or your history to know if there's any more to this than meets the eye. My general advice is to avoid any appearance of advocacy. Will Beback talk 09:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Lila Rose
I am issuing this to both you and Haymaker...you both need to edit collabratively. Reverting back and forth gets neither of you anywhere. Take a breather, talk it out on the talkpage. If you have questions, feel free to find my talkpage and I will hash it out with you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with that. I've suggested that he take his changes to the talk page before making them again. WMO 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...and I would suggest you do the same, please. Talk it out. Sometimes just a simple conversation will settle things. You will see their side and they will see your side and you can find common ground and a happy medium that works. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lila Rose. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- 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. Please take a break from this article. Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)