User talk:Mr.grantevans2/archive1

Hillary Rodham Clinton BLP and 3RR warnings
The material you have added three times to Hillary Rodham Clinton today is inappropriate for her biography and raises concerns regarding biographies of living people, as you have been advised. You are welcome to continue discussing this on the article's talk page, but please stop adding it to the text. This material is not directly about Hillary Clinton, and does not belong in her articles. Also see the note that follows. Tvoz | talk 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tvoz | talk 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. I must not have handled the editing very well. I have responded further at the article

Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - it's not immediately intuitive, that's why we have the advisories. Particularly on high-profile articles  like that one it's usually a good idea to discuss major changes before making them, despite the encouragement to be bold, because the likelihood is that the same matters have been discussed already and some kind of consensus reached for the existing language.  Also true for  less high profile, but GA and FA status articles - usually they've been through a lot of scrutiny and discussion. This one is both GA and high-profile, meaning lots of eyes are watching it.  (You can look through the Talk archives for an idea of the debates that preceded about everything under the sun in relation to the article on Hillary.)  That's not to say you shouldn't raise issues - sometimes fresh eyes bring needed perspective - but doing it on Talk is still a good idea, especially if a change has been reverted once.  Cheers Tvoz | talk 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems continuing at the 9/11 page
Could you possibly comment here, I could use your help. Damburger 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting more involved in a variety of topics.

Thanks for the reference. Wowest 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the issue of American assistance to Osama bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war is discussed "extensively" on the 9/11 talk page, as you assert in your revert of my edit. Are you referring to your two-line assertion on November 10, 2007, which received no response? 9591353082 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference you sent me to the talk page does not show any well-considered decision on how to approach the Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden. I will bring it up. 9591353082 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
This message was posted there; I copy it here for your convenience:

User:Mr.grantevans2, before you post any more redundant sections here about LDS Church doctrine, I think it might be worth your while to look through some of the Latter Day Saint WP categories, specifically Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices and its subcategories. If you can identify a doctrinal subject not covered adequately by an article, it may be more worthwhile to bring it up at WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. There's little point using one specific article talk page about a church organization (i.e. this one) for a discussion of these broad doctrinal points that may transcend one specific organization. This talk page is not intended to be a discussion board for debating the doctrines of Mormonism.

Snocrates 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have posted my response on the article's talk page Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)