User talk:LeoDavid

Hi ! ; )

Your recent edit to the page Pippa Middleton appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I just took it as read that it is in such a way -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton
Your recent smutty comments on the talk page of this article are unacceptable and have been removed. When we handle the biography of living people we act in a professional and respectful way, not with immature personal comments. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal commentary, especially of this nature. Consider this a warning.--Scott Mac 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though it was wrong to post such stuff, thanks for the darn good laugh, as I had to leave the room. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, guilty. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-D -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The best laugh I had, since seeing Gilles Duceppe & the Bloc Quebecois get crushed. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ;-) -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Carole_Elizabeth_Middleton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carole_Elizabeth_Middleton your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:44, 5 May 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.
 * Wise ruler: YOU revert and don't use the discussion page consequently and you accuse me of war-editing. That's straightforward brazen. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did use the discussion page. Checkmate. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really consequently. That would be lying. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LeoDavid, you have reverted four separate editors to reinsert the "coat of arms" at Pippa Middleton. Surely you realise that you're edit warring, and are within a hair's breadth of violating the 3RR rule. I advise you to stop before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Lighten up, I will stop. OMFG -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pippa Middleton
When you are involved in contentious discussions. Do not remove the comments of other users. There are possible exceptions if they are personal attacks, or violate the BLP policy, or are entirely off-topic. But that you consider them repeating a previous debate is not one of them.

Further, as unhelpful as you may find the comments of other users, do not describe them as vandalism unless they are clearly so. Vandalism has a clear definition on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND) and must not be used of contributions unless they are clearly defacing articles in a manner that cannot be considered good faith. Please also see Assume good faith from which you may learn.--Scott Mac 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, though in this case, I really find it difficult to see acting in good faith. It's only nonsense-confusing because the last keep was on 30 April. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was acting in good faith. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I congratulate you! ;-) I quite believe it. Sorry to break it to you, but the last keep was only recently, on 30 April. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a real stinker. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving article while move request is pending
It is considered tendentious editing to move an article, as you have done with Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, once a move request has been opened and before discussion on the article's talk page has been officially closed (usually by an uninvolved administrator). Moreover, as has been mentioned in that discussion, English Wikipedia does not title article bios based on the "official name" of the person -- especially when their name and title is "official" in a language other than English. It is a violation of Wikipedia's Common name convention to title an article by a name that is official or precise yet not in prevalent use. Rather, articles are (within specified guidelines, in this case outlined at Consorts) named to maximize successful searches, and therefore the guiding principle is how is the person most frequently named in reputable English sources. The official and/or precise name is then given in the article lede and explained in the body of the article. I strongly urge you to take the opportunity to reverse this move yourself and allow the pending move request to proceed to discover the consensus among editors, before your action is involuntarily reversed and you are censured for disrespecting the talk page dialogue. You are, however, encouraged to seek to persuade other editors of your point of view in this matter -- while giving as much consideration to the views of others as you want for your own. FactStraight (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, LeoDavid (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)