User talk:Aqwfyj/Archive 1

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Windsor University School of Medicine, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Windsor University School of Medicine was changed by SGMD1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851487 on 2011-08-05T03:04:05+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Windsor University School of Medicine, you may be blocked from editing. Leuko Talk/Contribs 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Windsor University School of Medicine, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Leuko Talk/Contribs 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Leuko Talk/Contribs 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Wikipedia has a hard and fast rule, called WP:3RR. It says that you can't undo the actions of another editor on the same article more than 3 times per day--more than that, and you will be blocked. I see that you've already reverted on Windsor University School of Medicine 4 times today, so technically you've broken the rule, but since you may not have been aware of it, I won't block you. However, if you revert on that article again I will. What you need to do is go to the article's talk page and discuss the issue with the other user. If you can't come to a consensus, then we have processes called dispute resolution which you can take advantage of. And just so you don't get upset, I'm going to be giving the same warning and instructions to Leuko. Finally, note that I have declined your vandalism case against Leuko--neither of you are vandalizing, you're simply disagreeing about article content. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - thanks for letting me know. SGMD1 (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Leuko Talk/Contribs 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor/MedCab
I don't know if you just don't understand MedCab, or if you were being intentionally deceptive. First of all, MedCab hasn't even accepted your case; you didn't notify any of the editors that you want to join, and mediation takes quite a bit of time to complete. Even if your case were accepted and a process went through, it's not like MedCab actually decides anything--all they do is help other editors work things through. Please note--I actually agree with removing that section, but you can't circumvent the consensus gathering process by removing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the MedCab link to the Controversy discussion and a mediator made a response on the Windsor talk page.
 * That's not how it works. Again, mediators are not people who content deciders.  Steven Zhang's opinion is relevant, has merit (and I believe is actually right), but it's not like he can declare by fiat what is the correct way for the article to read.  In fact, no body or individual on Wikipedia has the right to declare, without consensus, what an article should say.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, you're edit warring again. Wait for consensus to develop on the talk page.  Period.  Any more attempts to revert to your preferred version will result in me reporting your for edit warring and possibly lead to you being blocked. Wikipedia works by consensus; it does not work when one person just keeps reverting back to their version.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought the mediator made the final decision. Who does make the final decision on content disputes then? I don't anticipate that a consensus will be reached on the talk page based on the state of the discussion (hence why I went to MedCab.) SGMD1 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Community consensus makes the final decision. Period. MedCab can help users reach that decision, but they don't ever dictate the result. Also, Mediation means just what it says--it's not one person presenting a case and then it's done; instead, all of the users have to agree to enter discussions, then they discuss for a long time, etc.  In some cases, the result can come down to a rough vote, although pure numbers are never enough.  Often an RfC can be used to help work out if there is consensus, by bringing in outside editors (however, now is absolutely not the time to start an RfC, as the discussion is still progressing nicely). At this point, I see the consensus swinging towards removing the info, especially since (I think) policy favors removal.  However, we're not at that point.  Ultimately, you're hurrying too much.  These things take time.  The information included is not so terribly harmful that keeping it in during discussions is damaging anyone. Let's continue the discussion, and see where we go (especially now that I and Steven Zhang have both unambiguously sided with removal). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Would you recommend I close the MedCab case then and just let the RfC play out or should I keep it open? SGMD1 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Filing things away
Hello my friend. You seem to have a tendency to file things away and remove them from sight. You are very tidy. Me too. I do however, encourage you to consider keeping things a bit more visible. It's very helpful for others. Plus, transparency and visibility of data is one of the beauties of Wikipedia. (Of course, your talk page is entirely your business.) All the best to you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

USESOM Logo
The University of Sint Eustatius School of Medicine holds the image copyright and the logo, regardless of how it may have been obtained, however, especially through unauthorized copying from a university document, is not intended to be made freely available for dissemination in the public domain and is solely used for official university business, marketing and publication.

Please remove the uploaded image from Wikipedia's database, and any other locations you may have posted the image, online or offline. Your use and upload of this image, without the express written consent from the University of Sint Eustatius School of Medicine, is unauthorized and may result in legal action.

You may respond to this message via usesom@eustatiusmed.edu.

190.107.248.218 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of logos in Wikipedia articles is allowed under fair use guidelines without permission from the trademark owner. SGMD1 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Mt king  (edits)  02:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi SGMD1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

templates
Please do not add a silly template to my talkpage for a single edit - also it was not WP:vandalism - please don't miss - characterize my contributions. Off2riorob (talk)

((3RR|Campaign for "santorum" neologism)) - Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made 3 reversions, not 4. Vulgar is already written in the second sentence. You are making a redundant and controversial edit. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a citation - you just don't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, because it's poor writing and redundant and obviously being discussed on the talk page. Someone else will revert it, don't worry. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sick of the crap article, II am just taking it of my watchlist. Bye. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring
SGMD1 please stop edit warring on Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Please also note that making exactly 3 reverts in an attempt not to break 3RR is gaming the system, and you can be blocked for doing so. WP:3RR is not a license to make 3 reverts a day. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit in question was redundant and controversial as per the current talk page discussion. Once the redundancy was removed I had no additional concern. And gaming the system only applies if I make a 4th edit just outside a 24 hour period. I have made no attempt to do that, nor have I implied that I plan on doing that. Thanks. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism
Despite being temporarily banned by you for 'vandalism, this IP <24.138.46.92> has returned twice more to make further malicious additions to the page "Marcus Dillistone". 95.210.174.152 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reported the IP. The user should be banned shortly. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lexi Thompson
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lexi Thompson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christiane Pflug
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christiane Pflug. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Stanley
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Stanley. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian rupee
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian rupee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

American University of Antigua
The reason they are not in the reference is because their not accredited by either the Department of Education or the American Association of Medical Schools. It's clearly stated that they are NOT recognized. I'm reverting the edit. Gsingh (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to this discussion as this has issue has been ruled on previously by administrators and mediators. AUA is not accredited by any number of a thousand accrediting agencies worldwide. Unless a source explicitly lists AUA, it cannot be used as per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a fair argument. Gsingh (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Myers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mike Myers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stella Parton discography
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stella Parton discography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vaccinium Cyanococcus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccinium Cyanococcus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 New Jersey v. Ravi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks for deleting personal info
Thanks for. I don't want anyone tracking them down. --Javaweb (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Please comment on Talk:John F. Ashton
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John F. Ashton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicin
There is a concerted effort by users to remove verifiable information from the website of the St Martinus University faculty of medicine.

Why did the reference from Curacao registry removed? Why did the pdf magazine from the Wikipedia removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmauiuc (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the Curacao reference and I'm not sure what pdf magazine you're referring to. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 22:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Dylan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bob Dylan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germans
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Germans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Darrell Issa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Darrell Issa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paris Hilton
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paris Hilton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Winning percentage in coach bio articles
SGMD1, per our exchange on my talk page yesterday, please see the discussion I've started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. All the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

excuse me ?
it will fly, the AMA is a reputable source, and this is a valid article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.92.18 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the AMA article as a source for Kansas in the Licensure Restrictions section. An entire new section duplicating that information will NOT fly. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 22:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on University of Health Sciences Antigua. 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: 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. ''You know about edit warring, you probably also know that being "right" doesn't make it okay. Please be careful, as edit warring is more than simply avoiding WP:3RR.'' tedder (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Russell Wilson edit
Almost all the pages I've seen have shown where a player last played their college ball. I didn't realize that Favre or Brady had their high school listed on their infobox. I don't know. – Michael (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable Alumni is Notable
SGMD1 deleted the section on an alumni who is notable, and was (and is once again) properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.48.11 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Medical University of the Americas – Nevis for my response. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

MUA Notable Alumni
OK - do you think there is another acceptable section for this information to go into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.48.11 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family Research Council
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Family Research Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jonah Falcon
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jonah Falcon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD
Lance Easley, the official for the game, has an AFD going on here. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Seahawks/Packers article
Please explain how the version of the lede you keep reverting to is better.
 * 1) The entire play is explained without noting that it was controversial. This basically summarizes a football play and neglects to establish notability of the play (the entire reason the article exists).
 * 2) Saying that the offensive pass interference penalty would have ended the game does not add anything - it was the final play of the game, so of course it would have ended the game! What is significant about the missed call is that it would have resulted in a different outcome to the game, something your version of the sentence misses entirely. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 04:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "controversial" nature of the ruling is described in the final sentence of the lede. "The offensive pass interference penalty would have ended the game" is directly from the NFL statement. Unless you have a source that states something different, that trumps all else. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 04:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting the last sentence with "the controversial ruling" essentially means you are referring only to the simultaneous possession facet of the play, since the non-penalty call was technically not a ruling at all, it was just an oversight on the refs' part. And what difference does it make that the NFL statement says the penalty would have ended the game? This is completely redundant to the fact that the play was made as the clock expired. The entire reason the penalty was significant is that it would have affected the outcome of the game. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference it makes is that it is a reliable reference. Wikipedia can only write what is written in reliable references. Unless you have reliable references for your edits, stop adding them. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 04:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From the SI.com article you added: "The NFL said Seattle's last-second touchdown pass should not have counted because Seahawks receiver Golden Tate should have been called for offensive pass interference, ending the game with Green Bay winning." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)