User talk:ChicagoGuy11

Hey Mark,

You're here as an editor and so am I which means we have a common interest in providing quality information. I hope you don't have a personal interest in this page, it concerns me that you say "Your point of view." I haven't argued support behind it but rather defined the term. Point of view is irrelevant it means what it means. Since Wikipedia is a place to support knowledge I will continue to champion knowledge.

Though this is a disambiguation page, and I understand your point about formatting, however, I wonder if adding a line of context information is unhelpful? If you would like to recommend a page that better fits for this information or create one for the term, I welcome it.

--- Please stop reverting on Traditional marriage to reflect your point of view of what a traditional marriage is. It is not an article, but a simple disambiguation page and should not contain a definition as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the RFC clearly states there is no consensus to add an "explanation/contextualization".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, you are at three reverts (as am I). Another revert could get you blocked from editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Traditional marriage. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Traditional marriage. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

About Me
Hey everyone,

I love this community and hope to provide fair info to it. I'm fairly new and have made some rookie mistakes but am always interested in learning, getting advice, and making things better. I can say that I've noticed people are passionate about their beliefs which is great but I'm the type of person who will be ready to challenge if that starts to breach fairness and get overly political. Feel free to leave a comment, I will always do my best to be respectful and expect the same of you.

Go bulls

Do not alter the historical record
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Traditional marriage, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had decided to change my comment in that I asked a question already answered so it was clarified in the new edit, that seems pretty constructive to me. lol I think that's reason enough and am considering changing it back with the reason placed... Glad you are contacting me though, I am thinking of working on a page describing Traditional Marriage with respect to sexuality... it seems that the idea has been proposed before and would love you to join. Many editors are claiming their narrative without letting new editors into the process so I am looking to partner with someone.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)