User talk:Inthefastlane

Welcome ! 

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your, a link to this talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. ou can  for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you  put  on.

 Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

July 2014
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that my edit would undo yours; I'll be more circumspect about this the next time. Inthefastlane (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"This user is new to Wikipedia"
Puzzling, no ? If you planning on making any more edits to articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, I suggest you don't.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at (the removal of 'conservative') vs  (the addition of 'progressive').
 * Look at edit summary = "actually had a look through the archives (#38) and it wasn't deemed not noticeable, so I'm removing (as per talk) the whole section" vs the actual discussion
 * There's nothing puzzling in my edits. On the other hand, you must be lacking a sense of irony in using the word 'puzzling' because for somebody who has attracted this and this comment on your talkpage, you're not in an ideal position to judge whether people should be editing articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, let alone Wikipedia itself.
 * With regards to your specific points:
 * (1) the rationale behind my actions is valid - FAIR calls itself progressive (and hence, the reason why I added that label) while the Hoover Institute has no 'conservative' self-description. (It calls itself as a public policy think tank promoting the principles of individual, economic, and political freedom so if that description/label was used instead, I wouldn't have removed it.) To be fair, I should have made clear that the FAIR label was a self-description, but that should not detract from the fact that my thought process behind those two edits implied no double standard.
 * (2) What about the discussion? Although it never says explicitly that the section should be removed, it's easily inferable from how that discussion proceeded (and in particular, from: how the discussion ended, how the majority of the discussion participants did not support the inclusion of that organization's activities into the main article and how the problem of notability was reflected in the relative lack of reliable sources to which the organization's activites were cited in the extant version of the main article) that the section should've been removed. That said, if you still find my edit puzzling, you could be less vague about your comments and come up with a substantive solution as to how you could improve that edit so that it would be less puzzling - like, for example, finding more reliable sources in which the Vanguard Leadership Group is cited. Inthefastlane (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
I restored the citation needed tag on Terrorism in Canada which you removed. Teh reason for this tag was explained in the edit summary, in the tag itself, and on the talk page discussion Terrorism in Canada. As the tag reason states, there is no reliable source cited which states that this act was "Islamist" terrorism. Here's what was wrong with your edit:
 * 1) Undid my edit without leaving an edit summary, which is the same as calling my edit vandalism. The undo edit screen clearly says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."
 * 2) Removed a valid maintenance tag without fixing the problem. The "Islamist" label is not only unsourced in this article and not used in the main article, but (as far as I can tell) has not been used by any reliable sources. That makes its use in this article WP:OR or WP:POV.
 * 3) Removed the tag without participating in the talk page discussion Terrorism in Canada. The "Islamist" label has been challenged and is under discussion. You can't arbitrarily change it back without giving any reason. Meters (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and I should've put a citation stating or suggesting that it was an "Islamist terrorism" (which at the time there were plenty of articles that did say that), but I didn't at that time because I thought that connection was so obvious it didn't need discussing. Will be more careful next time. Inthefastlane (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Domestic criticism U.K., Canada
Hello Mr/Mrs, in article '2014 American-led intervention in Iraq', 19 Nov, you threw out the domestic criticisms in U.K. and Canada, here and in the next edit. Seems to me not a good idea: it is presented as an international operation, 'American-led', so I would think also other partaking countries can have their 'domestic' criticism. Please return that material, or give your reaction and motives in discussion Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why I moved the UK and Canada criticism section is that nothing in the Wikipedia text and the articles to which the text is cited contains either a criticism or, more generally, an explicitly discussion of America's intervention in Iraq. Despite the controversy of its misnomered title, the 2014 American-led intervention is a documentation of America's contribution to its fight against ISIS in Iraq, ergo making the criticisms irrelevant. It would be more relevant to put the sections here but that is different than the Wikipedia article for which that talk page is concerned. Inthefastlane (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Generally, editors who have committed a 3RR mistake and wish to repair the damage do self-revert their complete edit, rather than choosing to selectively revert part of one's edit and retain other parts convenient to their version - which is what you did unfortunately. My presumption here based on your selective reverts is that you're gaming the system. Please stop. The next block would be a longer one. Once this particular 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Wifione  Message 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Selective quoting
Such changes in a controversial situation is unacceptable, because leads the reader to a certain position, says nothing about the other details and violating WP:NPOV Mistery Spectre (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific in your accusations? Inthefastlane (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are all well understood. At this moment I leave and I hope for your understanding. Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Stalinism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

FYI
I have reported you to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard for your repeated breaches of the 1RR policy at January 2015 Shebaa farms incident. RolandR (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
To enforce an arbitration decision and for aggressive reverting and violation of the 1RR on articles within the scope of WP:ARBPIA on the page January 2015 Shebaa farms incident, you have been blocked from editing for a period of three days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Petro Poroshenko article
Hi, Inthefastlane. I've removed your content addition to the Petro Poroshenko article as being a potential WP:BLP violation, and per WP:NOTSCANDAL. If you believe that the content you added is well backed up by WP:RS and is not WP:UNDUE, please feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2015 (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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)