User talk:Howelseornotso

Please self revert ASAP
Please note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Please also use the talk pages of articles to discuss edits. Thank you. Varsovian (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your warning
Thank you for your note on my talk page. Please note that I am always very careful to not break the 3R rule. However you reverted precisely the same material three times in a 37-minute period. This is not accepted under WP rules. Would you like me to file a report about you or would you prefer to self-revert? Varsovian (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Varsovian, firstly: Don't bite the newcomers. Secondly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: You are equally engaged in edit warfare with Howelseornotso yourself, and could equally be warned. Thirdly, you went overboard and deleted my work on the paragraph outright, moving it to another article - despite the fact that your 2-time section blanking was discussed on the LVP Talk page, and I already flagged I would report this as abuse if it happened again. Fourthly, as Loosmark has already told you, you need to establish WP:Consensus rather than make unilateral changes of this kind. It doesn't look like you have consensus yet. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Howelseornotso, welcome. Please read the guidelines. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly you'll notice that I have already posted the welcome note on Howelseornotso's talk page (after first erroneously posting it on his userpage). Secondly your own actions are very close to the wind, feel free to report my actions, I'm sure yours will also be of interest. Thirdly, the idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created . In your reply to that proposal you do not have even a single word of objection to that proposal, instead you accuse another editor of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, creates a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues” . I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including you. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself, ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies.” . I again agree that a new article is needed  and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained. Varsovian (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad that everything has been cleared up. If there are any questions for me please ask.--Howelseornotso (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)