User talk:Fodient

Three-revert rule
I suggest you read this rule before you are banned. 203.220.10.226 04:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 220.253.76.67 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What others are saying about YOU - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belarus 220.253.76.67 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR again
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Deor 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Final warning
Per this Articles_for_deletion/Russel_Timoshenko, the clear consensus is that while the death of Officer Timoshenko is tragic, he is not notable enough to merit an article in the encyclopedia. This includes including inserting links to the non-existant into other articles, which you have done repeatedly. Please see WP:BLP1E. Any further insertions will be viewed as disruption and may result in you getting blocked again. Please stop. henrik • talk  19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Last chance
I blocked you after you resumed your editing patterns directly after a block. However, per another administrator's warning ebove, I have unblocked you so that you can contribute constructive edits to Wikipedia. Any continuation, however, will result in an immediate and indefinite block. Please try to improve Wikipedia rather than disrupting it. Thankyou,  E LIMINATOR JR  19:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome 

Thank you for joining the Law Enforcement Wikiproject on the English Wikipedia! As you would have guessed we are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to law enforcement

Since you now are a member you get to have our userbox or banner on your userpage! To add these use:
 * 1)  -- our userbox, or
 * 2)  -- our member banner.

Here are some more tips to get you started:
 * Creating articles: See here for articles you can create, but don't forget to add   to the base of the article and our project banner to the talk page of the article using   
 * Participate on our talk page: It is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it]. There are also a number of small projects on the talk page as well that may be of interest to you!
 * Check the bulletin board: For news and information, please read the bulletin board regularly or add it to you user-page using: 
 * Improve an article: Click here to find all the really short articles, pick one from that list and improve it. When you are done go to the talk page of that article and removed the bit in bold and another editor will be along to see how well you have done and reassess the article to a much higher class.

All members are reminded:
 * That this project aims for: No vandalism, no conflict and if particular articles in this project are suffering from vandalism, edit wars or talk-page abuse, please add it to the Article Watch List

In a nutshell:
 * Join, Create & Assess
 * Members in trouble can go to:


 * 1) SGGH speak! (Project Coordinator)
 * 2) Dep. Garcia ( Talk   + |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  )  (Assistant Coordinator)
 * 3) Or any project coordinator listed on the main project page or members page.

Again, Thank you and Welcome

WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll
 Hello there ,

We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.

Thank You and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Mifter (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Resurrection (Kew Gardens, Borough of Queens, New York)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Church of the Resurrection (Kew Gardens, Borough of Queens, New York), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://resurrection-richmondhill.e-paluch.com/history.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Somno (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Richard Gere has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. Chasingsol(talk) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 07:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 18:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To amplify these warnings: the material and sourcing you're adding violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a venue to repeat rumors, even if those rumors are mentioned in motion pictures or animated TV comedies. If you continue edit-warring to insert this inappropriate material, your account will be blocked from editing. Please consider discussing these concerns on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Talkback|Nsaa|Thanks for the invite, but...
An IP claims to be you at

March 2009
This is your only warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of most of Jennifer Fitzgerald
Judging by your edit history, it seems to be a rational conclusion that you did this as a way of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please cease and desist, or you will be blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That article has a reliable source, a magazine article which discussed the rumor in great detail and attempted to assess its truth, itself relying on other sources, and doesn't say they were false. Nor was it the only article to do so. That's more than one instance of non-trivial coverage. Whereas, as the about.com page you've used as a source mentions, the one attempt to verify left the National Enquirer reporter "convinced he was chasing an urban legend." (If you can find that Palm Beach Post story, and it's devoted totally to that rumor, you might have a more defensible source, but since as the about.com page notes Gere wasn't the only subject of that one (I do remember that myself from that era), I really don't think it's relevant. Two mentions in pop culture are also hardly enough to establish it as something meriting mention. Frankly, a whole section devoted to it, even just a paragraph, is a violation of WP:UNDUE in a BLP article, I think. (I suppose a better place to discuss it might be a more detailed, and thoroughly sourced, article on "gerbilling" as an urban legend, or a section in some other article with a redirect). Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't use your IP to do this, either. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And apparently this wasn't the first time, either. Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna
I was just copy-n-pasting those over myself (just about to click "save") and I saw you had done it, funny. Thanks for adding those. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frank Morano for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank Morano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Frank Morano& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Craig Robertson Article
Hi, You and I exchanged comments regarding the Craig Robertson article. I now question his notability after I found out that the 2017 Congressional baseball shooter does not even warrant an article here. Check out my comments, I'd be interested to see what you think. Talk:Craig DeLeeuw Robertson Dwain (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Your recent editing history at WABC (AM) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlueboyLINY (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:BlueboyLINY has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the content you added might not have been good-faith please keep this mind not to add bad-faith edits please and please do not edit war! 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Also in this context I was referring to Fodient himself. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything I added was in good faith and appropriate. Fodient (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Helicopters and NYPD
Use of helicopters to intimidate protesters was made illegal in September, and NYPD's use of the helicopters anyway against pro-Palestine protesters in New York City is in defiance of a court settlement which bans them from flying helicopters over protesters. Perhaps you were unaware; it is impossible to know everything. Nevertheless, I hope that this clarification of the law helps you to understand why I phrased NYPD's tactics as repression, because they are illegal.

Additionally, see here as to why Hell Gate is most likely a RS. You seem to edit for New York City sometimes as well, so this should be good news for you too as it was less clear before.

Best.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 02:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies to post twice on your page, I wanted to avoid confusion. I realized I was reverting your edits too much in a way that seemed rude and I have restored them. Best. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I support how that section is currently written.Fodient (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)