User talk:Robert the Broof

Robert the Broof, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Robert the Broof! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

Robert the Broof (talk) -- 18:47, Thursday, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Constitution
Hi, The Mesopotamian bit dealt with ancient law codes - there was nothing there relevant to constitution law which begins in Ancin Greece. The iriquois content seems to be also unwarranted - it was an oral compact between tribes and it is difficult to argue that this fits in an article on the development of the western notion of a written constitution. The content is also mainly about rather 'politicized' polemic about the relationship between it and the American constitution. The overwelming weight of scholars would deny this link. What is your view?Noodleki (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My view is that it is entirely relevant and necessary to counter the misinformed mythology that has Constitutional law begin in Greece (this is an incorrect view promoted by some nationalists, but the need to globalize the topic was recognized early on.) Similarly the view that the Iroquois contributions to Constitutions are irrelevant and be deleted from mention because some schools of thought don't like it, is unacceptable and a point of view. Robert the Broof (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I simply don't see what Mesopotamian law codes have to do with constitutions - for instance Code of Ur-Nammu is referenced. If some feel strongly about the Iroquois (although the overwhelming weight of credible scholarship is against it as the article itself makes clear) then that material can be left although should probably be trimmed as most of it is very tangential. At any rate, I will restore the additional material I put in while leaving the Mesopotamina and Iriquois info as it is for now.Noodleki (talk)

October 2015
Your recent editing history at Tobacco 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.You are now past at 3RR - Corbie V  ☊☼ 16:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. - Corbie V  ☊☼ 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

your edit summary: "wp arbitration committee settled this case and you cannot falsely claim He denied divinity"
Could you please explain this with a link to the case? Thanks. It seems highly unlikely as we don't make decisions about content. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the quote, this time with a proper source (the earlier one failed WP:RS, including a quote from his grandson. Doug Weller  talk 17:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

BC vs BCE
Irrespective of the correctness of your edit concerning era styles, you are wrong in saying that the MOS says we use BC, it definitely does not. Take a look at WP:ERA. I thought you'd like to know this in case it comes up again in an article you are interested in. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rastafari, you may be blocked from editing. ''If you think the source fails our criteria then complain at WP:RSN but we go by what sources say, not your beliefs.

Still waiting for an explanation about the Arbitration Committee. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)''  Doug Weller  talk 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hamitic
Have you seen my comments on the talk page about the use of Stiles? Doug Weller talk 12:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Your recent edit to Petersburg, Virginia appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Petersburg, Virginia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''I removed the physician's entry from the notable list because he doesn't have an article. In case you were not aware, that is one of two qualifying criteria for being on a community notable person's list. Ascribing a motivation to another editor's actions is never a good idea; it's a clear violation of AGF, and AGF is a pillar policy. Please don't do it again. Discuss the edit, not the editor. '' John from Idegon (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)