User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Archive 1

Do not edit others comments.
Don't edit other people's comments. I have reviewed the edits you removed and determined that they were fine. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Battleships
I've noticed your name on my watchlist quite a bit lately, welcome. You may not be aware of the current project underway to raise every article on modern battleships to featured status: WP:OMT is the shortcut. Your comments that have been left at Talk:USS Tennessee (BB-43) may receive more eyes and reception at the talk page of the project instead. -MBK004 05:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the matter of aircraft carriers, I have plans to get all those up to FA as well. The working code name for this project is Operation Valkyrie's Wrath, with the carier work codenamed Valkyrie's Ride and the carrier's plane complements codenamed Operation Valkyrie's Flight. Thought you might like to know. The reason that I have not announced any plans for carriers yet is because I do not want to overwhelm people and would like to incorporate lessons learned from OMT before initiating plans for OVW. 129.108.67.47 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note 129, and hope you'll take up the conversation here since I'm not sure you have a User Talk page. Aircraft carriers are the ultimate weapon in control of the ocean. Battleships are really, really cool though and they had their day. And I mentioned on MBK's page that there are even some destroyers that deserve a lot more attention than they have received. The final battle of USS Borie, for example, was really hard-fought at close quarters and would be of interest to readers. I agree that we should wait until the BB project is done, and apply its lessons to the CV project. One comparatively new problem that we'll have to tackle, that won't have precedent from the BB project, is a consistent way of handling articles about carrier-based aircraft squadrons and air groups. This should be discussed separately during the BB project so that when the BB project is finished, we can hit the ground running with a complete plan in place. Please give that some thought and get back to me with your reaction, Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He does, he is a logged-out on extended wikibreak, the lead coordinator of the Military History WikiProject as well as the brainchild of OMT. -MBK004 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Approve of some Obama edits
I'm surprised, but I actually think you made a couple good edits on the Obama article. The "consensus of economists" thing was way too fluffy and partisan, and your rewording is much better. Also, mentioning the specific 48% approval was done without adding words, so I'm happy with that. I'm not sure it needs the exact date in November when the poll happened, but that seems harmless. Good job. LotLE × talk 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of USS Borie (DD-215)
Hello! Your submission of USS Borie (DD-215) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Following some of your additions and some I made this morning, I've now approved this for DYK. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template removal
I've noticed that you are removing some templates. Please do not remove ', it was developed to fix an issue with italics in ship names where it appears. (see its documentation: Template:'/doc) -MBK004 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is just how we do things here, I don't profess to know why as well, but to change methods requires discussion. They will probably know why at WT:SHIPS, so until then please just use the template. -MBK004 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin quote
How is it "commentary and criticism" if the only thing that's said about it is who it's by and where it's from? And no, this isn't for the article talk page, since I was trying to correct your misunderstanding of policy. It's about your behaviour, not the article. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, I understand the policy. Kindly restrict your discussion of the article to that article's Talk page. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let me try again. If you understand the policy, why are you not abiding by it?  Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am. If you have a problem with the way in which I'm abiding by it, there's already a lively discussion of this edit on the article Talk page, and you're welcome to participate there. Not here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you're running up against the WP:3RR. Just a friendly reminder. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA nominations
If you're serious about nominating the Enterprise, Tennessee and Borie articles for GA why haven't you followed the complete procedure as laid out in WP:GAN? Nobody doubts that you could fully cite these if you have the proper sources at hand, but you've only done some editing on Borie since you nominated all three of them, but not enough to bring it up to B-class, and neither of the others qualify for B-class, much less GA, in their current state. I really don't understand why you feel it's so important to have a quick GA review when you're setting yourself up for somebody giving them a quick fail as any editor can pick any article out of the queue for review at any time; it all depends on how interested an editor is in the topic of the article. And, FYI, the standard for citing is at WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, I have removed all three from GAN because as Sturmvogel points out, they are all eligible to be quick-failed, and that is what I have done, although I have not done a review to make this fail on-the-record. My advice is to thoroughly read the instructions for nominating an article as well as the academy article linked for you above. Then just try one, Borie is the closest, Tennessee and Enterprise would require quite a bit of work to be in a position to where they would not be a quick-fail. -MBK004 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TomStar81 (Talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for RightNetwork
Ucucha 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of RightNetwork
Hello Phoenix and Winslow, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, RightNetwork, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:72.228.177.92. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:72.228.177.92. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

youth
Does anyone NOT have a misspent youth???? :D Thelmadatter (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose that if I had devoted my youth to some noble and constructive cause, and I had achieved my goals, it wouldn't have been misspent. "I gotta smoke either more of it or less of it, I can't quite figure out which one ..." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

About SPA-accounts
From Single-purpose account:


 * Common Misuses of the Label SPA "Established editors focusing on a single topic: If a user has a substantial and diversified history of edits, the user is not considered an SPA, even if he or she has recently focused on a single topic. In determining what counts as a substantial history of diversified edits, it may be important to consider the ratio of the number of past multi-subject edits to the number of new single subject edits."


 * Handling and advice; Decision-making tags "Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Review the "Identifying SPAs" section, and make sure the tag is not an example of a common misuse of the term. Please keep in mind that the tag will probably be taken as an insult or an accusation. Use with consideration."

Hope that clarifies that.TMCk (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In response:


 * 100% of Ceemow's hundreds of edits have been to the article mainspace and Talk pages for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the biographies of the two authors of those videos, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, and their employer and publisher, Andrew Breitbart—the only exceptions are his own User Talk page and the User Talk page of two other editors, where he continues to talk about this single, narrow topic. Pardon me, but this is a textbook example of WP:SPA. I've seen the tag applied before on far weaker evidence. Look at his contributions. See for yourself: Ceemow contrib history It isn't even 99.99%—it's 100%.


 * I am absolutely, 100% sure that I am doing this for good reason. Once again, look at at his contributions. See for yourself: Ceemow contrib history Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a SPA-account but as you can see (from above) their edits don't "qualify" for that sort of tag.TMCk (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Please elaborate. Why don't Ceemow's edits "qualify"? It's clear to me that not only is he an SPA, he's POV-pushing. It's a POV that I happen to share to a certain extent, but this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia where we check our biases at the door. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly would call an editor who is contributing for almost a year (even so on a narrow topic) an "established" editor. POV-pushing is (unfortunately) very common from a "variety of editors". If you think they're POV-pushing with a wp:COI you can bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard. Hope that helps.TMCk (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, you describe him as an "established editor focusing on a single topic." But please read the caveat that follows: "If a user has a substantial and diversified history of edits ..." He doesn't. It's the polar opposite of diversified. It's 100% (not even 99.99%, but 100%) on this extremely narrow topic. "it may be important to consider the ratio ..." I welcome such a comparison. The ratio is 100% to zero. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, P&W. I got your note inviting me to participate in this discussion, because TMCk "ran away" from it? I'm not sure I can add much more to the conversation. I noticed you were tagging all of Ceemow's contributions with a note stating his is a single-purpose account. I don't see the purpose in that tagging, and frankly, it looks to me like a form of attempted disparagement upon an editor. As noted above, there is nothing wrong with having a narrow editing purpose, as long as you are editing productively -- and Ceemow certainly qualifies in that regard. Disruptive SPAs, brand-new SPAs, and SPAs with a Conflict of Interest can be causes for concern, but Ceemow is none of those.

You two do realize you are arguing over the application of an essay, right? Not a policy; not even a guideline ... it's just an essay, and the tagging stipulations mentioned in it are not intended for editors like Ceemow. They were meant to address disruptive editors. Everyone involved in this discussion is already aware of Ceemow's edit history, but if you really feel the need to alert new arrivals to our discussion about Ceemow's editing interests, then you can drop a note on their talk pages saying, "Ceemow likes to edit ACORN-related articles." I make this suggestion because the method you are currently employing could possibly be construed as minor harassment of an editor, despite your best intentions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We are headed toward RfC. I'm not going to employ my amazing telepathic powers to determine who's responding to the RfC and reading the Talk page, before they make their usual single comment and go back to whatever they were working on before RfC, and post notices on all their User Talk pages. After all, I don't have any telepathic powers. You may not agree, but my time is valuable. I have a job, I have a family, and I have other WP articles I'm working on that need my attention. Regrettably, tagging Ceemow as an SPA is the cost-effective solution. The tagging stipulations mentioned in that essay are most certainly intended for editors like Ceemow. WP:SPA does not address disruptive and COI editors only. It also addresses POV-pushers. In my opinion, Ceemow is a POV-pusher: evidently believing that Mr. O'Keefe and his comrades embody the worst thing that has happened to America since the American Civil War, he's on a mission to post as much negative information about them as possible, in as many articles as possible, and demonstrate to the world that what they're doing is just wrong.


 * To a limited extent, I agree with him. But Mr. O'Keefe and his comrades are hardly the only practitioners. The mainstream media have been doing it for a very long time, at least 50 years; and the practice has generally been aimed at Republican politicians and operatives, rather than Democratic Party activists like ACORN. (For example.) These efforts haven't attracted Ceemow's attention for some reason. He seems eager to expose bias and dishonesty among conservatives such as Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Breitbart, but extremely reluctant to mention or even consider any possibility of bias or dishonesty among progressives such as Mr. Brown, or the several JournoList participants whose criticism has been imported into this article on a large scale. I have applied Occam's razor and determined that he's pushing a POV. In doing so, he does all progressives at Wikipedia a disservice.


 * I do not take this position lightly, Xeno, nor do I take it out of any sense of partisanship. Far from it. As I said, to a limited extent, I agree with him. I first noticed his edit history about a week ago, and his conduct on the article Talk page has thoroughly confirmed my suspicions. He's ranting. I'm tagging him because we're headed toward an RfC. There will be a lot of editors unfamiliar with the history, who will be looking at the Talk page. They deserve to be alerted to this fact (or what I perceive to be a fact—I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, and look forward to any proof of that which you or Ceemow, or anyone else, may choose to offer.)


 * I'm going to explain all of this to Ceemow on his Talk page, as gently as I can. I'll inquire about his motives, and why he hasn't worked on articles involving other examples of gotcha journalism. And I'll explain that I do not intend to harass him. Fair enough? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Ceemow proclaim his COI, if any? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Ceemow know we are talking about him here so we can obtain his input? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello P&W. After reading the above, I think it's important to keep in mind that WP:SPA is an essay and not a policy.  It says that a SPA tag may be used, but it does not say that it should or must be used.  Intepretation is implied and editors may disagree on whether or not it's use is appropriate in any given case.  You are certainly not breaking any rules simply by applying a SPA tag per se.  However, it is clear that you are not a disinterested neutral party happening upon a debate and simply taking notice of another user.  You've also stated that your time is valuable to you and you have other articles that need your attention, hence you are "regrettably" tagging Ceemow as a SPA as a cost-effective solution which some might see as being about achieving your own goals.  Looking at the reverts, other editors here have taken issue with this and may see it as an attempt to sprinkle the talk page with comments on a fellow editor in an attempt to secure an advantage in the debate.  While you have every right to persist in your opinion that the SPA label should be applied, editors who disagree have their own opinions as well and are certainly not wrong to revert the labels.  A user who invests the time and effort and "edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight" regardless of whether or not their account could be construed as a single purpose account.  An editor would not be unjustified in feeling that repeated labelling efforts in this fashion might constitute a pattern of offensive behavior for the purpose of adversely affecting and intimidating him in the argument, i.e., harassment, even if it's not your intention.  If Ceemow actually agrees with you that he should wear SPA labels in all his comments, then that's a different story.  Also, looking at the edit history from yesterday, we should all probably consider the disruptive effect (i.e., 3RR) if someone insists they are "right" in this regard.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

P&W, i have submitted this matter for Arbitration. There is no point making a big dog-n-pony show out of this, so I took the liberty of seeking Arbitration on the issue.

Also P&W, my record stands on its own; my edits have been thoroughly vetted, and are inserted with complete consideration for Wiki guidelines, as well as the sincere honesty of representing reliable and verifiable facts as they are recorded in RSs. I know a lot about the subject, and have only submitted reliable information (that has been checked against multiple RSs) for it.

Moreover, I have never engaged in sock-puppetry or any other dishonorable means to push a point, nor do I keep a roster of users who come to my rescue at a moment's notice, with full comprehension of my discussions. By contrast, the aggresive posture you have taken is harrasment, your own behavior has pushed POV and COI issues (not to mention poor conduct), and you have not checked your own submissions against RSs--, you should be careful about that last one especially. That's just evident from the boards history. So remember, now that this is a matter of arbitration, you dont have to play Colonel Klink on me any more. Ceemow (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "I know a lot about the subject." Would you please expand on that?  You may have a WP:COI.  No problem, just declare it, like I did. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello All, LAEC, in answer to your question, when I say “I know a lot about this subject,” I mean that I had developed an early fascination with it (because of the sensation it created), and have collected as many materials on it as I could. Contributing to and researching for this Wiki article has been part of that process. That’s why this, and articles related to it, suffuse my user account. I mean, I took O’keefe’s challenge literally, and actually read his transcripts, watched both his posted and unedited videos, and compared them all with other reliable information on the subject (it’s a very long and boring process, but I recommend it if you want to see a graphic demonstration of the real formal issues posed by this story.)  I have also archived his own statements from BigGov.com regarding this event, and those of his colleagues as well, in addition to news reports and updates. So yeah, i have a catalogue of information on this topic ranging from several perspective. But that doesnt pose a COI.

P&W (and anyone else), I have removed our exchange yesterday from my talk page (it is accesible in my talk history, if necessary for dispute resolution.) It was just unseemly. However, I have posted a response to some of your questions on my talk page. As you know, I can be rather long winded (but complex and emotional topics such as this do sometimes require that), so I didnt want to load down your talk page with my statements. If it is a of any use to you, please see my talk page for my response. Toodles. Ceemow (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hi, does this POV tag relate to the lack of information in the article about Attorney General Brown's politics vis-a-vis his investigation? Maybe best to tag just that section instead of the whole article. I hope we can keep the heat level on medium, not high burner... Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment -- Fox News
I started it under your RFC on the talk page. Thank you. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Deckers
Looking at your edits, it does seem like you have more than an outsider's knowledge of Deckers, and certainly a non-typical passion. Do you have a connection to the company? Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No connection, as I stated at Talk:Ugg boots. I have never received a dime from Deckers or its law firm or its marketing agency. I have never communicated at all with Deckers. I have, however, bought a pair of UGG boots for my wife, and she loves them. I like to research products before I buy them.
 * And in the past three weeks, I've done a lot more research. So it may seem that I have a bit more knowledge than the typical outsider. During those three weeks, I've acquired a certain passion, but it's the passion of someone who's being falsely accused, and observing what might be an effort by one or more Australian marketing agencies to influence Wikipedia editing. I've observed a lot of things that are just too convenient for the Australian manufacturers, and I suspect something is up. More (non-Aussie) eyes on this article would be a good thing. Thanks Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I'm not Astralian, but my dog is. Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, so's my ex-wife. Maybe that's where all of my passion and hostility are coming from! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not Australian and have nothing to do with the country. I originally arrived as a result of an RFC.  So be careful about how you characterize "everyone" participating at an article. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 11:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg Boots
Hi. I find that I have to request that you refactor this comment. Accusing other editors of acting for "knockoff brands or even counterfeiters" reads like a personal attack. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Articles for deletion/Ugg Australia. Your comments are most welcome. Regards, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoenix and Winslow...
Good call on trying to bring some rational conclusion to these discussions we've been having... Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Image size
We differ in opinion on this one. If I can quote ImageSize

" In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."

Trust me on this one, the customary style is for a large pic in the infobox and thumb size for the rest - see for example T-34. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Thank you for your note. Please see my note about SourceWatch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sourcewatch Thanks! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Hello! I hope you are enjoying this fine evening. I think what needs to be done to get any traction for our proposals is to start going through articles and editing out allegations "sourced" solely to these hyperpartisan sources. I'm game if you are. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RfC Text Needs Attention
FYI, your RfC submission text in the RfC list requires attention. I'm confident that's not what you would have displayed as the subject of your RfC. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to UGG Australia
Hi! just a quick comment - I noticed you've been fixing a lot of the links that used to go to Ugg boots in order to redirect them to UGG Australia. Mostly this is fine, as in many cases the articles are referring to the particular brand, however in a few cases you've accidentally changed links that were properly referring to the generic term. I've fixed the ones that appeared to be a problem, but it might be something worth watching out for as you go along. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hi
Talk:Type 94 Te-Ke Takabeg (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfc on WLRoss
If you open an Rfc (recommended) on WLRoss, I will jointly certify it as it pertains to his massive disruption at 9/11 articles. The Rfc can detail your experiences and then mine...the issues regarding his disruption of the article your dealing with him on are not familiar to me, but his pattern is the same, the POV pushing of conspiracy theories over the known evidence...there already are two arbcom cases that can used to put an end to his misuse of this website...something I think is long overdue...let me know when you have done a draft.--MONGO 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U
I took the liberty of adding your RfC/U to the appropriate list. Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. Two points about the contents: RFC/Us cannot result in sanctions or topic bans so requesting them is not appropriate. Better would be something like, "request that he change his behavior". Second, you need to have a second certifier who has tried to resolved the same dispute. I don't see how the dispute at the Franklin article can be easily connected to a dispute regarding the 9/11 attacks. There's not even evidence of the existence of such a dispute. That evidence, and evidence connecting the two, should be added as soon as possible.  Will Beback   talk    23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just looked at the contribution history of user:WLRoss. In the past year and a half he appears to have made only three edits to 9/11 articles. Unless you can show that those edits were significant POV pushing you should probably remove that allegation.   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Phoenix and Winslow...I had to move my certification on the Rfc to "others"...I'm thinking the Fringe theories noticeboard as mentioned is the best route to take for this..if he flares up much more on 911 articles, we have a prior arbcom case that could be used to apply a sanction, but he isn't that active in editing the 911 pages himself lately...he mainly sticks to commenting at the talkpages...however, I currently live in Omaha, and was not familiar with the article you've been dealing with him on till you mentioned it to me...given some time, I could examine that article more and see what the deal is...I suspect as you say, he is trying to emphasize fringe issues more than policy and guidelines permit.--MONGO 02:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a deletion request on Requests for comment/WLRoss due to the lack of a second certification. That does not mean that the views expressed by you and other editors are invalid, just that there has not been the minimum of two editors who've tried to resolve this particular dispute. If the editor's behavior continues to be problematic then I suggest you employ other methods of dispute resolution before starting another RfC/U.  Will Beback   talk    22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper sources
I emailed you the copies of the actual newspaper headlines as specified...are they divergent from that website? I haven't done a side by side comparison. Even if they are identical, WLRoss and Apostle12 are in violation of the NPOV policies and this probably needs to go to arbcom to settle it..there is a prior case at arbcom...Requests for arbitration/Fringe science...however that deals mainly with science related articles, not POV pushing fringe theories so much.--MONGO 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing other people's talk page comments
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. In this edit you altered a correctly indented comment so that it looked as if I was replying to another person instead of yourself. See for further information. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two years later and you are still not following proper indentation. Please read Talk page guidelines which is a hard-and-fast behavioral guideline, and Indentation which is an essay. Note that the guideline page refers the reader to the essay, and that the advice of the essay is expected to be followed. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations
This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

USS Liberty "Incident"
Hi, could you please help me out with something on the USS Liberty incident page? I find it quite disingenuos to call it a mere INCIDENT, when throughout the ENTIRE article, it is called an attack. I fought in 3 wars for this beautiful country and find it rather insulting that Wikipedia would consider 171 of my fellow soldiers deaths just a mere INCIDENT. Can you please change the word INCIDENT to ATTACK so that it holds some form of uniformity throughout the article? Thank you. Respectfully, Staff Sergeant Daniel E. Benson, USMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsMEEE69 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Franklin article
Per WP:NPA please delete your post. Wayne (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't a personal attack. It's a calm, non-emotive statement of fact, Wayne. And the actions of multiple administrators, in deleting all of your violations of Wikipedia policy confirm that it is a fact. I doubt that at this late date, any action at all will be taken against either one of you for your persistent, multiple violations of Wikipedia policy, including WP:RS and WP:BLP. So what are you worried about? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
PLease note that I have raise concenrs over your description of Uggs-N-Rugs at WP:AN/I please follow the link if you wish to participate Gnangarra 06:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Please_see_WP:NPOVN. Your name has been mentioned in passing. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Phoenix and Winslow
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Compromise Proposals
I've posted some compromise ideas on the NPOV page. I hope they're helpful and can clean up the problems the page has faced.--Factchk (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing from Ugg boots crusade to other topics
P&W, I would like you to know that I am gathering evidence for an RfC about the huge problems you have created by pushing so hard to promote the Deckers version of what Ugg boots are all about. I am looking at your activity here on en:WP and at other languages where you only appear as a single-purpose account, supporting the notion that you have picked up a conflict of interest somewhere along the line.

I propose that you change your ways to save us all the trouble of ever-escalating discipline and protective measures ending in a topic ban or block. You can do this by volunteering to stop generating so much drama regarding Ugg boots, to stop wasting the time of other volunteer editors. Rather than an outright topic ban on all Deckers and Ugg-related article content, which is a likely end result, I propose that you volunteer to:
 * Restrict your Ugg and Decker involvement to article talk pages and Wikipedia process pages such as noticeboards. No article space edits at all.
 * Restrict your Ugg and Decker discussion contributions to one edit per day.

I hope this note serves as a catalyst initiating a period of self reflection. I hope you take my intention seriously and that you determine to retool yourself as a valued editor focusing once again on, say, military surface vessels, as you have so well in the past. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UGG Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof (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) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Ugg boots trademark disputes. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. If canvassing continues you may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in your being blocked from editing. Wayne (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Wayne...if you want to discuss bias, let's look at Kerry and Kay Danes, where none other than Jimbo Wales himself stepped in and removed all the BLP violating stuff you'd been supporting for years. Phoenix didn't "canvass" me...if he wanted to he could have emailed me...I checked his editing history and saw the Ugg Boot issues (which I have previously participated in) and knew you'd be on the other end of the loop...I've almost reached the point where I am going to refuse to AGF of your contributions to this site...about all you do is promote fringe theories, violate BLP and do general harm to the articles.--MONGO 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When asking  opinion on a specific ongoing content question, it is much better if you just alert people to the problem. Let them  make their own analysis based on what they  see for themselves. What you should be asking people for, is any contribution they can make to the discussion, or even their personal  opinion, but not a vote--one way or another. (this is a comment on the note about Ugg boots, not any more general problem.    DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your vandalism warning
Don't do that again please. And how can something be final when there weren't any earlier ones? That wasn't vandalism but a content dispute, and you are wrong about WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've offered multiple earlier warnings in my edit summaries and on the article Talk page. If you insist on diffs, I can provide them. You are entitled to your opinion about WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I think if a sufficient number of experienced editors take a look at all the facts here, you'll be proven wrong. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR at Tea Party movement
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your behavior as described at WP:ANI is rather alarming, and if that's the full story it might be enough to justify an edit warring block of your account. If you have anything to add, it would be helpful if you would comment at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring and 1RR violations at Tea Party movement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 21:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind my input and advise for the future. Since several editors (incl. me) told you that there is no BLP issue (which would be exempted from 1RR), why, after several "warnings" from your side to do so didn't you follow up and simply post your perceived problem at the BLP notice board to get some further input and get confirmation of being right or wrong? That would've been the easiest and proper way to handle dispute about whether it is or is not a BLP issue. This way you either would have ceased reverting on BLP grounds or, had your take on it backed up as a exemption from 1RR. To me it seems that although you're here for quite some time (incl. editing as an IP as you said recently), you still have a lack of experience/understanding in regards to rules; In my experience it comes from sticking to mostly one subject. Extending your editing [and I'm not talking just some ce, etc.] to other articles, even if you don't have a serious interest in them, could give you some insight on how we work here. IMO reading is as important as editing to get not only the basics but the advanced core of editing. Hope this is to some extend helpful to you.TMCk (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix...whatever you do, I wouldn't edit the TPM article for awhile...articles like that are simply hotbeds for POV pushers and sadly, only a coalition of likeminded editors will get things to change. I tend to avoid such places as much as possible since I consider them hopeless. Even contributing to the talkpages is generally a waste of time.--MONGO 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * POV pushers from all sides of course [and yes, there are more than just two sides]. There is no need for a "coalition" which would be against the spirit of WP anyways, but like other political articles there'll always be disagreements; One POV versus others. At the end we have to rely on RS's output and just go with what they say, putting personal opinions (partially sourced or not) aside. By partially I mean to say that there are sources arguing several sides and only the most reliable (and mainstream?) can be considered. But bluntly said: Edit-warring just back fires and is not helping at all.TMCk (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to commit to not editing the article for 24 hours or so, and to pursuing your concerns on the relevant talkpages and noticeboards rather than through edit-warring going forward, then I'd be happy to unblock you (or another admin can, if I'm offline). MastCell Talk 03:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is the best way forward. BLP can apply to more than just an individual, but the problem with the Tea Party and the article is that it is an amorphous group. And even with more organised groups there are times when we can say 'this group holds this belief' and 'this group is sometimes described as holding this belief'.  It appears to me that we can say the TP has been described as anti-immigration but we cannot say that it is anti-immigration. And you need to read WP:VANDALISM. I think everyone editing this article is editing in good faith (you have read WP:AGF I hope) but from different perspectives. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement
You might want to drop the "fringe" argument by now. It is your (own) opinion and nobody can take it away from you, but you're still alone in that assumption and as I mentioned earlier, inquire at the appropriate board or let it go. Repeating the same just makes you look weak in your arguments, doesn't help you and might even backfire at some point. It's your choice of course.TMCk (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ugg boots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bearpaw (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) 21:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

april 2013
You're on a slow edit war on the Tea Party article, but I am sure you realise that and are simply pushing the limits on 24 hours. You have now rejected two compromise edits and your forum shopping has, without exception, resulted in a rejection of your interpretation of policy by other editors. Consider this a warning as this may have to go to ANI Snowded  TALK 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugg boots trademark disputes
Please stop altering the lead to include promotional, irrelevant and incorrect information. The dispute is regarding the word not the use of the word as part of a trademark. In the case you cited in support, Luda, they specifically stated they had no problem with the word as part of a trademark. There are 70 trademarks in Australia that use Ugg as part of the trademark and none are arguing about it. Ugg boots are not just a style of sheepskin boot, they are foremost a style of footwear and then a style of unisex sheepskin boot. Both are mentioned in the lead so why change one to duplicate the other? The article already states that Deckers registered the brand "UGG Australia". It is redundant, promotional and irrelevant for the lead as the article is not about the companies involved but the dispute. That something has been in the article for six weeks is irrelevant. Being a well known brand is irrelevant for the lead as it is not a factor in the dispute and the article already mentions how popular they are. The lead is for an overview of the topic, not for promoting your beloved Deckers. However, I've left that in as it is relatively minor compared to the other points. Cheers Wayne (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can delete the warning but doing so is an admission that you have accepted it. At WP:ANI it is a requirement that you be warned so I'm just crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Wayne (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no AN/I requirement he be warned, only that he be notified.--MONGO 04:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a requirement that someone tried to resolve the problem before taking it to ANI? Wayne (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar articles
So WLRoss (Wayne) has followed you to both UGG Boots and the Tea Party article...this was after you encountered him on the Franklin article? Looking at this tool..he also apparently followed you almost immediately to Anton Chaitkin, an article the two of you have edited only once each...as shown here...that was during the Franklin dustup, which WLRoss also apparently showed up after the you did as shown is these old revisions before the deletion and recreation by NuclearWarfare.--MONGO 04:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What a nifty little tool. He was also stalking me at Ward Churchill and Webster Tarpley. I had totally forgotten about those incidents. Since you're the one who found them, would you point them out at WP:ANI? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want the two of you in a flame war on my page or at AN/I...I do need you to see if Wayne is correct in what he has posted at my talkpage about you showing up at Ugg boots after he did...and let me know if that's the case here. I'm trying to play referee on this but if I find he has been following you around to various articles, then I'll bring it to the community via Rfc or arbitration....be aware that vice versa applies as well.--MONGO 13:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice work!
Though you could use a compliment on the TPM discussions. Collect (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. [Blush.] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Advancing the Moderated discussion
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. Cheers.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

copy-vio image/screen shot
See .TMCk (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

T-34 - Panzertruppen page number
You recently added a source to T-34, could you provide the page number please? ( Hohum  @ ) 23:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555133983 your edit] to T-34 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555584952 your edit] to T-34 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Content discussion, resumed
The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "Xenophrenic, undaunted by such things as being outnumbered four-to-one (or worse), erects a Wall of Words", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however annoyed they feel, on the discussion page.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

message
You've got mail! Check your email. I've sent you my schedule. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss this bright orange notice? Did you not read what I said about my schedule this week? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

statement needed
There also needs to be a 'statement of the dispute.' Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M4 Sherman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traverse (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) 15:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC
Hi, from your comments at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy it seems you may not fully appreciate that editing in the climate change topic area is subject to General sanctions, see WP:ARBCC for the case, a list of behavioural issues and a description of the sanctions. It's worth being aware that care is needed to fully comply with policies when editing in this topic area. . dave souza, talk 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your request to the arbitration clarification page is misplaced - you should really have posted that to Reliable sources noticeboard. You can wait for the arbitrators to tell you the same thing, if you want, but that would really be wasting everyone's time. I'd advise you to try the noticeboard first. Prioryman (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... no. With all due respect, I'm afraid you have that backward. At WP:RSN, they'd notice that the reliability of blogs (as well as the reliability of other sources) has already been addressed in the ArbCom proceeding and the final decision, so they'll just defer to the ArbCom decision, and I'll end up back at ArbCom requesting a clarification. I think proceeding directly to ArbCom may be the best route. Of course I've been wrong now and then, so it wouldn't surprise me if you turn out to be correct. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed to inform me + misconstruing my comment at ANI
I just found out that you mentioned me at ANI in your initial post in regards to Xenophrenic here w/o informing me as the rules demand. The thread is closed by now of course so there is not much sense to add this now. But I'll keep in mind your gross misconstruing and thus misusing of my actual comment I made regarding the "Bush defenders" edit. At ANI you stated: "''And even one of his defenders at RfC/U, TMCk, who is clearly no fan of mine, admitted that I was right, and that the words "Bush defenders" had no business being in that article and should be removed." I've said nothing of this sort and you know it. What I'd said was: "''I saw that edit long before it was introduced a "evidence". I myself would've reverted the previous unso[u]rced POV edit but would've left out the "Bush defenders". Even so properly sourced, it is/would be just serve as a silly reason to edit war over it. For onces I support PW's latest edit that didn't introduce the previous POV and left out the challenged "Bush defenders". Still, there was nothing wrong with the previous sourced content.TMCk (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC) (My bolding). I have to ask you (for the first?) and last time not to misconstrue comments of mine or others, disregard or conveniently forget(?) other editors comments including warnings. Yes, I just brought up your ignoring of a warning made by an admin [one you've shown not to take seriously] at the Ugg related article about trademark disputes as it is a good example of your editing style. Thanks for your ear which sure will again only hear single words that your mind will again turn into a fantasy out of context and facts just as it serves you... but I sure would like you to proof me wrong for once, just once.TMCk (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

EMU Austalia
My problem with linking directly to sheepskin boots is that it is not the article about the style that EMU Australia produces. It seems to make more sense to link directly to the specific style. I don;t have a particular problem with not describing them as ugg boots in the EMU Australia article, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that they produce sheepskin boots in anything but the ugg style. Thus it seems reasonable to use sheepskin boots in the text, but have a piped link to the particular type of sheepskin boots. I was hoping that would be seen as a decent compromise. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

tb
here

I mentioned you on SilkTork talk page
That mention can be found, here.

"the strategy is obviously to obstruct everything, until the people who actually want to improve the article give up and go away. And it's working" - Frustrating though the process is, the procedure is that on the discussion page we focus on what will help improve the article. Making unnecessary negative comments about others, either directly or indirectly, doesn't assist the process, it hinders it. If you make another oblique negative reference to other editors on the discussion page you will be blocked. If you have concerns, raise them on my talkpage.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

please consider supporting
you make several great points, yet we could get to the other issues if this topics was resolved, which may produce a better overall result faster. no matter what you decide, you efforts are appreciated by many on this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic banned on Tea Party movement
You are banned from editing the article for one week for removing sourced content from the main body of the article without consensus per this edit. More details at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. You may (and please do) continue to take part in discussions. But you must not edit the Tea Party movement article until this time on 21 June 2013. If you do edit the article you will be blocked.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infantry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike (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) 11:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:SilkTork
It's usually best not to use other contributors as examples. Even more so in contentious discussions. Please do not again comment on other users in Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Comment only on the content. If someone has made an edit you disagree with - example, adding 'Boo' to the article, then say: "I don't agree with adding 'Boo' to the article" rather than: "I don't agree with User:X adding 'Boo' to the article."  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)