User talk:Jmugge

-- SPhilbrick  T  00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Calabe1992 15:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note / warning
On Wikipedia, revert warring like you just doing normally leads to blocks for everybody involved, regardless of who is "right". I did not block either of you since I am not certain if either of you knew about the three revert rule. Please discuss your changes on the talk page of the article rather than reverting, which accomplishes nothing. Additionally, if you are concerned that material being added to a biography of a living person (commonly abbreviated as "BLP" on Wikipedia) is inappropriate, you may wish to request help on the biographies of living persons noticeboard or via other methods of dispute resolution. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Jamie Comstock
As you are on Dr. Comstock's staff, you have a very clear conflict of interest in editing her article. Please read the guidelines Conflict of interest and WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. In brief, you should not make directly any but the most trivial and uncontentious edits on any matter with which you have a COI; otherwise, you should propose on the article talk page changes that you would like to see, declaring your interest, and allow uninvolved editors to decide. ("Editor" means the same as "user" - there is no separate class of "editors.")

The way Wikipedia should work is described at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - if a change you make is reverted, do not simply make it again, which (as you have seen) leads to WP:Edit warring, but discuss it on the article talk page and endeavour to reach WP:Consensus with other users. If you cannot reach consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution procedures. For articles concerned with living persons, there is a policy at WP:Biographies of living persons, advice at WP:BLP/H, and a notice-board at WP:BLP/N to invite intervention from uninvolved users.

I have protected the article for a week and posted at WP:BLP/N to invite help. You are welcome to join in the discussion on the article talk page. Please declare your interest and observe Wikipedia's policy of WP:No personal attacks - comment on content, not on contributors.

I am sorry that things have gone so far before anyone has explained all this to you. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jamie Comstock for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie Comstock 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/Jamie Comstock until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Geoff Who, me?  00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)