User talk:Lahaun

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Maywood
Dear Lahaun, When adding comments not relevant to the discussion please start a "New Section" As I have done here.

RE: your comments from the Maywood talk page: "This entire article seems to be very poorly written, especially those parts that discuss the city's decision to layoff all employees. The article does not even mention the city's insurer's August 2009, notice that the city was in danger of losing coverage if it did not meet specified conditions, or the associated issues of the city's inability to attract a qualified city manager, its failure to address major liability issues involving the police department and apparent political gridlock, all mentioned in the cited 6/25/10 LA Times article. Moreover, the whole "illegal alien" population discussion relates back to a single, unsourced reference in a local TV station report. I have absolutely no stake in this article and only came to it after reading a news report about the global layoffs, so will not follow-up, but please, let's do a little better." Lahaun (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As a new editor I would suggest you review WP's standards on civility. As a newbie, you need to understand that popping into an article, criticizing, and saying " will not follow-up, but please, let's do a little better" is not the least bit helpful and not up to Wiki standards of courtesy. You apparently did not check into the history of this article and its former "Fairy tale" flavor of some talented editor. "Very Poorly written" ?? Then Fix it. Every article here is a work in progress and Maywood is a prime example. Do not criticize and run. This editor has spent hours just bringing it up to reality and current events, and is still working on it. A vague reference to a LA Times article is not helpful, a link is needed. If you think it needs to be done"Better" then jump right in! We don't need critics, we need editors! Be of Good Faith and do your part in improving Wikipedia. If you need help, I can suggest many excellent mentors or you may go find one yourself. Just: "please, let's do a little better." Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Alvin Greene, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

September 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Jonathan Morris (priest). Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, 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 an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

19 kids
It's not just acceptable to me. It's acceptable because it has been that way since the article began -- which, as you pointed out yourself, was 3 years ago. You're going to try to tell me the rules? ..when it's you who are violating? If you don't know about edit warring, there's a link above, but you should already know about it since I see that you have been in violation of it before. So, you shouldn't do it again because if I have to report you, there is a greater chance of you being blocked from the site.

Now, let me give you some constructive advice. This is how I do it: When I make a change (once) in an article and then another editor reverts it, I go to that editor's edit count page to see how long they've been an editor and how many edits they have made. If it's more or about the same as mine, I will usually discuss it (either on their talk page or on the article's talk page; whichever is more appropriate) and try to come to an understanding. If we still disagree, then I just let it go -- no matter how right I think I am. It's better to stop an edit war before it starts. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I disagree that the longevity of an particular version of an article is controlling, it's a factor, but not a determinative one. You are avoiding discussion of the changes I added and simply saying the article can't be changed because it's been in its current form for a long time.


 * Same thing applies to your "constructive advice," an editor's seniority should not be a controlling factor in a dispute.


 * Here's a rule that I think applies to the situation: Ownership of articles.


 * Finally, your comment, "If you don't know about edit warring, there's a link above, but you should already know about it since I see that you have been in violation of it before. So, you shouldn't do it again because if I have to report you, there is a greater chance of you being blocked from the site," sounds like something a 7th grader would say and I did not find it helpful. BTW, the dispute in question was resolved in my favor.


 * Please see my new proposal at Talk:19 Kids and Counting. Lahaun (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's better to reply to my comment on your talk page, to keep the discussion on the same page. Also, you repeated some of the same things on the article talk page as on the user talk page.
 * I have not avoided anything.
 * It's not about "seniority", and I didn't say "controlling factor." It has to do with experience (more experience equals more knowledge) and dealing with fellow editors with respect and humility.
 * My comment was not unreasonable given your past -- on 19 Kids and what I see on your talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some guidelines
Based on your recent foray into Muhammad, it seems that you are not aware of some guidelines: You've been on Wikipedia on and off for a while. Stuff changes if you stay away for too long. There's a lot more formalism now than when you and I started back in 2006, and it's hard to keep up to date on all the policies and guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. You were edit warring. You can still be blocked even if you don't technically violate 3RR.
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or WP:BRD. While not an official guideline, it has wide community support. Basically, if you make an edit that gets reverted, discuss it rather than revert-warring.
 * WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you to support additions you want to make. You tried to place the burden on others to justify removing your addition.
 * No original research. Claims you make must be backed up by references to reliable sources.
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Talk pages are not to be used to discuss the article topic itself, they are to be used to discuss improvements to the article. If you want to argue for the inclusion of a point about history, you need to back it up by reliable sources.

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mother Whathername
Thank you for your explaination. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good faith edits
I believe you are making a good faith effort to improve the article but we do not use Wikipedia's voice as the narrative to state that certain publications have reported something just because they have reported something. A reliable secondary source must make the claim. We just summarize the facts as sourced and not mention them in the prose. Also a News blog is an opinion piece and must be attributed to the author and source in the prose. Since it would be undue weight to add an opinion here and attribute a quote from that source I feel it should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben Carson
With pleasure! Thanks! You did a great job adding the Media criticism section - it was needed! --Mimi C. (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

One note - under the West Point section - you wrote that he responded to the Wall Street Journal but the reference only mentions Politico. Can you please clarify? Thanks. I tried to include the quote from the Carson campaign but the section now seems repetitive and muddled.--Mimi C. (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, it's hard to keep up with all the edits because his claims are being debunked fast and furiously!--Mimi C. (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lahaun. To be honest, it seems weird to have a Level 2 section on Media challenges to credibility. After all, this is a biographical article, and this area doesn't seem to be that much of a significant part of his life. The content is certainly relevant, yet whether it warrants that much detail is another question. Some content could be merged into the main biography sections up above. Yet, I'd like to say that I'm not a frequent editor of politicians or Americans' articles. starship.paint ~  KO   05:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Lahaun, if I deleted material related to Politifact's take on Carson's tax plan, it was inadvertent. Please show me a diff so I can fix my mistake. Thanks! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2022 (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.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Donald Trump, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sundayclose (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 10-4. Working on source citations now.Lahaun (talk) 21:55, 30 March 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)