User talk:Howdypardner

Three revert rule
Hi. Below I'm inserting a warning template which links a couple of rules and the dispute resolution process. I have mentioned WP:3RR at Talk:JIDF when you were using the Don'tbeaPOVPusher id that was blocked because someone didn't like the name. If we can't talk things out then one or both of us may be blocked. Fyi, in counting reverts both your known ids will be used. So you are technically in violation but admins are lenient to new users who haven't been properly warned about 3RR. Although I'm posting this here, I think that the article talk page is the best place for us to discuss things not our own talk pages.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Peter cohen (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * kinda lame i was indef. blocked because someone didn't like my previous name. i'm not here to "edit war" and i also don't appreciate other false assumptions you have made about me.  i'm not a "JIDF Rep" - i simply didn't like the fact that some editors seemed intent on smearing the org.  criticism is fine, so long as it is fair and accurate. --Howdypardner (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Note that deliberate misrepresentation of sources is a serious matter. The FAZ article "Antisemitism 2.0" does not say that "the FAZ claimed …". I have warned you before not to misrepresent this particular source after you garbled a sentence so that it got into an ungrammatical state where the most natural reading was also incorrect. This time it's even worse because the sentence is grammatical and verifiably wrong.

If you genuinely don't understand such points I suggest that you refrain from editing contentious Wikipedia articles directly and content yourself with proposals on the talk page. Otherwise people might take this for an attempt to game the system and make other editors break WP:3RR when reverting your nonsense edits. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted. However, I do not share you assessment of the situation.  I may have made a couple errors in that case, but I don't think the translation is 100% accurate.  I will work harder to make better changes in the future.--Howdypardner (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jewish Internet Defense Force has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bfacebook\.com' (link(s): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8792604867).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in a checkuser case
Hello Howdypardner. You're being discussed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Howdypardner. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) __NOINDEX__ Tiptoety  talk 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)