User talk:OSHAGUY

May 2018
Your recent editing history at Rick Scott ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's remarkable to me that lies are OK to post on this site. "Mostly True" is NOT FACT. If you people can't see this then there is no hope for this site. OSHAGUY (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though the edits of others are being based on the full body of the PolitiFact article, not merely on its evaluation of the specifically worded claim they are addressing. If you have issues with their interpretation of the material, the best thing to do is to start a discussion at Talk:Rick Scott and achieve consensus before resuming editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a waste of time. I won't be editing a damn thing on this site anymore. You are all a bunch of partisan hacks. OSHAGUY (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi OSHAGUY! I wanted thank you for your contributions at Rick Scott. I'd like to share a resource that can help if you have anymore difficulty with other editors: Dispute Resolution.
 * I looked at Gov. Scott's article and I agree with you: Politifact should not be used in this way--especially since this is a WP:BLP. It is a BLP violation. That said the problem is that other sources covered the Columbia debacle so it will be hard to keep that incident out of the lead. But there are still a lot of opportunities to fix the article:
 * Columbia is overwhelming the lead. It is unbalanced. See MOS:LEADREL. The lead is missing (1) Scott's response to the controversy. See WP:WELLKNOWN. (2) more text about what he is actually known for: governor of FL (3) his acclamation in Time
 * Scott's response to the controversy is also absent from the body of the article. It's crucial that this be added.
 * Let's get to work! – Lionel(talk) 09:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Important notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)