User talk:Atomic blunder

NPOV
"Actually, my main concern was that Slrubenstein was not following the consensus and there was reverting back and forth. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)" - well, actually, when an editor is fairly confident that something is a cler violation of policy, it is not at all uncommon around here for he to revert. But I am glad to assume good faith. Even given what you wrote, I do hope you are giving real consideration to the substance of what I wrote on the talk page. I really have made a serious effort to explain myself. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 05:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed a, what did you want to contibute to the talk:page and can I help with that? cygnis insignis 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

policing admins
you had a good idea! I did this I hope you will edit it as you see necessary, and perhaps begin the analysis. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM and Consensus
I've rarely seen anything good come of linking to WP:TAGTEAM. Ironically, I most often see it used as a derogatory label against editors properly working to consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not using edit summary
I know (now) that your most recent edit was only placing a comma in Harassment, and as such a very small edit. However, if you would have explained so in the edit summary (instead of leaving it blank), I would not have had to look at the diff. I would appreciate it, if you could do so in the future. Thanks. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jagz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. T34CH (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)