User talk:QuotationMan

Speedy deletion nomination of Monopoly of Initiative
A tag has been placed on Monopoly of Initiative requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monopoly of Initiative
I have nominated Monopoly of Initiative, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Monopoly of Initiative. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly of Initiative
I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI reported re your edits
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:QuotationMan_and_Declan_Ganley_etc Catapla (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI continued
I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
You have edited a great deal of sources from pages. This is POV pushing. It is not good practice to remove verifiable third party sources because you disagree with their contents. Please explain your all your edits on the talk pages involved. Catapla (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Reputable third party sources have been removed from Declan Ganley's page as he disagrees with them. Any of Ganley's associations which he deems negative (despite reference) are swiftly deleted, usually without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinirishpolitics (talk • contribs) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Libertas.eu
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. You have been edit warring at Libertas.eu and Declan Ganley. Your removal of well-sourced material from articles suggests that you are trying to make the article subjects look better, thus causing Wikipedia articles to reflect your personal point of view. This issue was first reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed
Hi, you have been reported to the conflict of interest notice board here Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard due to your recent editing. You are welcome to comment on the discussion. Thank you Smartse (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Continued removal of well-sourced criticism from Declan Ganley. Apparent WP:COI editing. Your block may be lifted early if you will agree to stay off this article and limit yourself to editing the Talk page. This issue has been discussed at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

QM has replied at User talk:EdJohnston
In case other admins want to check on the status of the deal, QuotationMan replied on my user talk, agreeing to the above conditions, but naming some other editors who he perceives belong to a group opposed to Ganley. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to this
I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Violation of ban
Hello QuotationMan. Please explain why you should not be blocked for violating your topic ban from the Declan Ganley article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the above wording, in the unblock, puts no time limit on your topic ban. If you're not accepting that deal then the block will be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Violation of ban
Sorry! I was under the impression I was only banned from those sites for 1 week, as the block I requested lifted was only a block for 1 week. I will not write anything on the sites until we have a new agreement.

I would like to request permission to write on the pages again. I will only make small positive contributions and not remove any sensitive material - such as my latest edits which you undid. With your permission I would like to be allowed to make contributions such as these.

--QuotationMan (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no new information that makes me think the topic ban should be changed or lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Judicial activism in the European Union for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judicial activism in the European Union is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Judicial activism in the European Union until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)