User talk:Socalpolitik

Leslie Daigle
You and User:Chow559 appear to be engaged in a slow-moving edit war/content dispute over this article. Could the two of you try to work it out on the article's talk page? p b  p  13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Leslie Daigle. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Your sources are awful, the information trivial, and the content not neutral. Plus there is an obvious consensus on the talk page to not include this stuff. Stop or get blocked.'' Drmies (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How are my sources awful? It's the largest newspaper in the County! There is no "obvious" consensus on the talk page. There are at least 3 others that agree with me. This is disputed information and it should either remain so or the page should be deleted altogether. --Socalpolitik (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what "Got Daigled" means, and how this is an acceptable source for a BLP. Note that we are required, especially in sensitive matters, to use secondary sources (this seems to cut off in the middle of something). And then your phrasing--"caught on video", as if this were not a public event. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leslie Daigle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leslie Daigle 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/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination) 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 template from the top of the article. p b  p  04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Leslie Daigle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Neil N   talk to me  04:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Neil N   talk to me  04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't ever call other editors . SarekOfVulcan (talk)  04:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this edit, for instance, you called other editors "corrupt" because they removed from Leslie Daigle material they felt was in violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. You cannot do that.  You can disagree with their assessment, you can argue against it, but you cannot say or imply that they are dishonest for doing so.  Please read our policy on personal attacks.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)