User talk:RocketLauncher2

May 2013
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to 2013 Woolwich attack, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Amy's Baking Company
Hey, Rocket. A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia! Regarding your addition of info on the 2010 incident to the Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) article, if that is reason that the owners decided to appear on Kitchen Nightmares, as you stated here, please provide a citation of a reliable source for this. Without such a citation, the material has no apparent relevance to the article about the episode. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

...this is why.
This is literally the only reason anyone would call Barack Obama a "mulatto" - it's linked to lunatic conspiracy theories that claim Barack Obama isn't rightfully the president. Wikipedia is not required to give such whackjobbery even the slightest hint of an opportunity to make virulently-racist claims on its pages. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at The Alex Jones Show. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not unless it's reverting shitty ass vandalism. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 22nd and Market building collapse for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 22nd and Market building collapse 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/22nd and Market building collapse 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.  LGA talk  edits   11:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

AIV
Please stop posting 75.15.222.126 at WP:AIV. The edits are not vandalism. If the user is not responsive, go to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. AIV is only for vandalism. And remember WP:3RR is a two way street. No matter how good your intentions, you can find yourself blocked if you're not reverting blatant vandalism. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have happened across a few of your recent edits and am offering some friendly advice which you may, of course, take or leave. The starting point for dealing with other editors is to assume good faith and remain civil as far as possible. Using edit summaries to make a point, rather than simply explaining your edit, is ill-advised. If you want to discuss content then the article's talk page is a good place to do that, but if you want to discuss the work of a particular editor do that at the editor's talk page. Happy editing, ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it


 * And what if he's completely unresponsive? I don't think it's good faith for the particular user I'm concerned about, considering people revert his changes and explain why and leave messages on his talk page and he just says "vandalism" or "harassment" or that one time where he called someone a Rick Perry supporter. I can revert changes, I try not to edit war and I think the only article I dropped the ball at was the Alex Jones article. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, read the talk page on PRISM and all related articles and news listings before offering up moronic discussions regarding a government /conspiracy/ and cover-up that was until four days ago Top Secret. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fatum81 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that discussion. That doesn't give you the right to mess with what he's saying. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism by a 17 year old kid to something a cartoon would say, in that I won't blank the entire section - but I will continue to make pun or fun. Would you like some cheese slices for your pizza? Fatum81 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Diagreeing with someone doesn't mean you can vandalize the talk page and can actually lead to a block. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll save you the space and pass you the links to fill out for the administrative editors now. Fatum81 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) click

Proposed deletion contested
I have removed the prod tag from Albums considered the greatest ever, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, propose deletion are disallowed on articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  02:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)