User talk:Wiki Historian N OH

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

File:Arena District Columbus.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Arena District Columbus.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Columbus, Ohio
It is a problem to make the assertions you made in the first senetence of the entry Columbus, Ohio. For starters, the presence of the terms "ultramodern" and "clean" as they were used in the first sentence of the leading section cannot be considered to be neutral and unbiased. Not only is the definition of "ultramodern" hazy and unspecified, but there was also no citation given that demonstrates a consensus view that Columbus is an ultramodern city. Calling it clean may be appropriate, but not in the first sentence. This would be a section or subsection further down in the article, perhaps giving information on the city's public infrastructure. JEN9841 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And adding to that, you have to be careful that the article doesn't become a promotional piece, but instead stays as an encyclopedic one, which means neutral and highly sourced. "Ultramodern" is not well-defined like JEN said and is highly based on point of view.  Clean is debateable as well.  If both terms have been used by reliable third-party sources, then some mention can be made, but again, make sure those sources aren't tourist sites or sites from the city itself.  --JonRidinger (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your September 2010 editing to the Columbus, Ohio, page appears to have all the subtlety and and sensitivity of a bull in a china shop. You don't appear to respect other people's work on this page at all, and that is a problem, I think. Jack B108 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

??? Added and contributed...

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Arena District Columbus.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Arena District Columbus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Janszoon's- Jan and Anthony
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your very helpful edits on the pages for Jan Janszoon and Anthony Janszoon van Salee. They are now much more in useful articles and are more in line with wikipedia standards. It has also given me a few additional sources to pursue in my research on them. Do you know if that play you sourced is translated to english anywhere, or will be performed outside of the netherlands anytime soon? Thank you. Gecko G (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Added some more stuff and sources. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

George Barne
No problem. You can create a new page for II here, just make sure to overwite the #REDIRECT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Law Lord (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment and awareness of edit summaries. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my compliments. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Marysville banner
I feel like your actions have not been reflective of the accepted practices on Wikipedia. First of all, you appear to refuse to recognize the significance of WP:CONSENSUS. Everyone else who has weighed in on this matter has disagreed with you. Can you point to one single editor who has written in support of your position?

Even so, the single voice in the wildnerness can, in theory, be the voice of truth. But if yours is such a voice, I am finding it almost incoherent at times. I have already asked you about the following statements of yours which I find confusing: and I have asked you to re-explain yourself. But you ignore my questions.
 * The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received.
 * The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else.
 * As the guidelines state, no one owns an article, therefore lacking any definitive authority to remove something rivals vandalism and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.

You also stated the banner is neutral; I gave a full-one paragraph statement as to why I did not agree with that statement. You have not seen fit to rebut that paragraph. Your strongest argument has been that this matter is ambiguous. Perhaps so. That's why we don't let a single editor make decisions in the event of disagreements. But you've never once explained why you think that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't apply to you or your article.

You also need to learn some courtesy. In this edit, you said--to an editor who had never before edited this page--that he needed to "stop vandalizing". What he did was easily justifiable, but regardless of whether you agree with it or not there is not one administrator on Wikipedia that would concur with your assessment of his edit as "vandalism". That was just rude and uncalled for.

So I will be reporting this to WP:ANI, if you place the banner back up there before we have a serious and open discussion which arrives at consensus. That's just the way it works around here, by consensus. Check it out. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I indicated I would, I have posted this matter to WP:ANI as you have placed the banner back on the page without demonstrating a good faith attempt to establish consensus. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry that it came to this; I certainly tried to avoid it. I want you to know that I tried to work things out with you as best as I could before bringing the matter to WP:ANI because I do believe that you are an editor of intelligence who truly wants this article (and presumably others) to be their best.  And you still can be a part of this, you just need to step back from things a bit.  When you say things like this you are basically saying that it is impossible that the other editors here have a legitimate point to make, and when you say something like this you merely give offense, which certainly doesn't make others more inclined to listen to you.


 * I hate telling anyone about myself because I don't like saying anything potentially self-identifying (that's why I've always resisted registering), but I'm going to do this to try to make a point. You should know that I am, as I presume you are, a college graduate, having graduated from a major public university which I attended tuition free based purely on my SAT/ACT scores.  I am degreed in both history and political science.  And it was in these fields that I made my living until middle age, when I decided (like so many others) that I wanted to move on.  But the point is, I am not an idiot.  (In fact, I qualified for Mensa membership, but never opted to join.  After my son joined Mensa, back in 1993, I saw that I made the right decision--what a boring group of people they were!) Anyway, there are a lot of other editors on Wikipedia who are also very intelligent, and you would do well to keep that in mind.  Are there idiots here?  Sure, but around here, idiocy is trumped by patience.  Unfortunately, sometimes the alternate is also true:  Intelligence can be trumped by patience.  The point is, if you learn to show good faith, accept WP:CONSENSUS (even when you are certain you are right and everyone else is wrong), you will eventually develop more credibility and will swing a bigger weight when it comes down to these disagreements.  And along the way, you may be able to change some of the rules you believe are stupid. (And you may even come to understand the wisdom behind some of the rules that you currently think are stupid.)


 * I hope you stay involved here. You have a lot to offer.  My recommendation would be that, for a few months, you look around and edit articles at random.  Intelligent people can often do their best work on subjects that they know little about.  Sometimes an outsider is just the person to come in and see problems in an article that others may not see.  That is typically what I do.  I hit that "Random article" link and see where it takes me.  If I'm at all interested, I sometimes stay a while.  Sometimes I don't.  Since my IP changes all the time, sometimes several times a week, I don't have a record of my work, but you will be able to, since you have registered.  I found the Marysville article via the random article link, but stuck around longer than usual because I had a personal connection to Marysville back in 1976, and it therefore piqued my interest a bit.  But that's unusual; usually I just move on.


 * Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. There's no reason you can't emerge from this block and eventually become a highly respected user.  Indeed, there are several administrators who actually started off much like yourself--strong minded, opinionated individuals, who struggled to learn to work within the system, and eventually mastered it.  Maybe that'll be you.  Again, good luck. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice
As you have certainly noticed, there has been a discussion of your editing at WP:ANI. There is a consensus that your editing at that page, with respect to the "Preserve America Community" banner, was highly inappropriate. You have been persistently editing against WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. There is also some well-founded concern that other aspects of your editing in this and other articles will require cleanup, in terms of neutrality and encyclopedicity.

This is a formal warning that if you insert that banner again you will be blocked.

I also strongly urge you to use a lot of self-restraint about reverting things, if others begin to do other cleanup edits on material you contributed, which you might disagree with. I hope this can be solved without putting you on a formal revert limitation or actually blocking you, but be aware that revert-warring (even below the WP:3RR threshold) will not be tolerated. Whenever you feel you must revert something, make sure you explain it politely on the talk page first, and then wait for discussion before you actually make the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Flip off. Contribute something to the article besides village idiocy.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Marysville, Ohio. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate this. Gain support on the talk page for your changes. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Marysville, Ohio. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please also read WP:CIVIL  Neil N   talk to me  22:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying this warning to my talk page doesn't really help your cause as I've made exactly one edit to the article thus far (more to come though). -- Neil N   talk to me  22:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Historian N OH, I have taken you to 3RR for your 6 reverts of the (so far) in a 24 hour period. That is a clear violation of the WP:3RR policy here at Wikipedia. You have also, as NeilN said, violated WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. If your reverting keeps up, I will suggest the month long perma-block be put back in place. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit-warring and violation of the three-revert rule on Marysville, Ohio; 7 reverts in 2 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tag teaming to create an edit war resulting in the block of a user should be against policy. Nobody is buying the silly games some are playing here. They must lead a miserable life and you have to feel sorry for them to be so bored and petty. Wikipedia lacks the credibility it does because of users such as those above, not because of this one. Consider the contributions.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the whole point of Wikipedia, which is working collaboratively to build articles. You don't own the Maryville article, and cannot demand that certain material be kept or removed. In the future, I would suggest you use the article talk page to discuss changes with other editors. If you don't try to bully them around, I think you'll find they are typically receptive of quality changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Spare me. And some wonder why thousands of editors flee this site and it has no credibility. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus, Wiki Historian, I was just trying to explain how Wikipedia tends to function, as newer editors tend to get overwhelmed by the site. You know, trying to be helpful and collaborative. Fairly common sense advise, to be honest. If you feel that strongly against Wikipedia, then why even be here? — Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will make this very blunt, Wiki Historian N OH, if you don't like Wikipedia, it's people and it's rules...you can always leave. No one is keeping you here and if you are so miserable, just go.  We welcome your edits, but we don't welcome edits from someone who can't follow the rules like you at the present moment. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol. You're the one who is miserable. All you do is complain and lie. Go away.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No sir, I am not miserable, I am actually quite happy. Please don't try to assume (you know what they say about assuming, right?) what mood I am in.  I don't lie, I tell the truth with diffs that show your behavior and admins appointed by consensus happen to agree with me.  That is what Wikipedia is all about.  A community based encyclopedia.  You want me to "go away", sure, fine, but make no mistake, I do have the Marysville, Ohio article on my watchlist and will be watching it for any addition of unnecessary or inappropriate content. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all your article Mr. there is 65k gays and lesbians in Columbus and William Harrison's picture is not licensed to be used here. The edits made to this page were and are in good faith. Others added the economic information which I supported them doing, and added to it. All edits I have done have been completely in line with Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Boosterism? Sorry if Marysville is a town and creating a historic article on it seems like boosterism. Occasionally a troll from Bellefontaine drops in and destroys the article, with their jealousy seething from their edits. You wanted to own the article, you own it. Start contributing. Watching, too.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:OWN? No one owns an article.  Not you, not me, no one. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't working . ..
Okay, what can we all agree on here? Right now, probably nothing more than this: That Wiki Historian doesn't like the way others have edited this article.  So from this one thing, let's proceed to have a conversation.

Wiki Historian, without saying anything about the other editors here (nothing about their motivation, or about their personalities or their intelligence), give an example of an edit with which you disagree. Tell us why you disagree with it. Then let the others come back with their explanations. If you really want to work here, you'll have to listen--really listen--to their explanations, and then reply, again, without making it personal. Can we give this a try? It will probably take literally dozens of exchanges, but if everyone really tries, maybe we can all learn to work together. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ignore this subsection, and carry on in the next section. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific issues . . . one at a time

 * Actually, I can see that Wiki Historian has registered some specific complaints. So let's deal with them, one at a time (or at least, separate them.  Altogether too often, experienced editors seem to think that quoting a common phrase or even linking to a a page is all that is necessary to explain policy, but we really need to be prepared to explain better than that, and on an individual basis, sometimes.

W.H. Harrison picture
The disagreement that stands out to me right now has to do with the picture of William Henry Harrison that was removed. Can someone explain why this was deemed inappropriate here? 98.82.34.167 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the article talk page. Reasons are given on there. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Talk:Marysville,_Ohio and Talk:Marysville,_Ohio. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neil. I think I may have found the source of WHNO's ire (that is, assuming his good faith in this matter).  You removed the picture of WHH here, and your explanation came later, on the article talk page.  But only minutes after you removed it, Neutralhomer removed it here, with the explanation, "it isn't licensed to be used on this page".  If you look at WHNO's response to that, he says that It is in the public domain and perfectly appropriate here.  And it is in the public domain, is it not?  I suspect NeutralHomer was using license with a different meaning than the literal copyright type of license, but I'm not sure.  Either way, WHNO appears to have been told something that he sincerely believed to be untrue, and he did not respond well.


 * Now Wiki Historian, it may have come belatedly, but NeilN did provide you with an excellent (IMO) rationale for excluding the picture. Before it was removed, the connection to Harrison read as follows:
 * In 1840, Otway Curry, a poet of national fame and resident of Marysville, wrote the "Log Cabin Song." It would inspire the Log Cabin Campaign of William Henry Harrison, who would go onto win the Presidential election that year..
 * On the article talk page, with a link to his removal of the picture, NeilN wrote,
 * Presidents have many, many staff members with obviously many home towns. The connection of Harrison to Marysville is tenuous at best.
 * Now, WHNO, I realize that Curry was not actually a "staff member" for WHH, but can you see how we cannot allow presidential pictures in every article which has a tangential connection? Think of it, editors could justify placing presidential pictures in literally thousands of towns.  And once the pictures are in there, their original purpose, to provide additional information and distinction, is lost.  Of course, even taking that into consideration, one might sincerely believe that the Curry-Harrison connection was sufficient to justify his inclusion.  But that point needs to be made calmly on the talk pages.  And you must also recognize that others can sincerely disagree with you, and after open, honest discussion, a consensus might develop against your opinion.  And when that happens, you must move on to other matters.


 * Also keep in mind, WHNO, that the other editors here are individuals, and they are human, and sometimes humans make mistakes, and sometimes, even when what they do is right, they don't do a good job of explaining themselves. But when you disagree with them, you are absolutely obligated to respond to them in a civil manner.  And you haven't exactly been doing that, to date. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can this be taken somewhere else and off my page? This is ridiculous and boring, just like the Wiki articles you are editing have become. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Boring? Yes, though to be more specific, the word I would choose would be tedious.  But that is what happens when one editor (myself) bends over backwards in an attempt to salvage an acrimonious editor (yourself) who is doing his best to end his career on Wikipedia.  I told you above that I presume your intelligence, but I can no longer presume your good faith.  And obviously, you have long since exhausted the more limited patience of the other editors here, as evidenced by the fact that the last in your most recent series of five edits was something that, by itself, some of them with more thought would have approved of, but combined with your other edits just got wiped out.


 * Boring? Yes, but when one child is incapable of playing nice with any of the other kids, perhaps the best he can hope for is a boring friend.  But even a dull and ultrapatient editor such as myself has no time for an unadulterated misanthrope.  You've made your own bed, you can sleep it alone.  Good bye. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows the policy of the Bolsheviks to exterminate the intelligentsia and their supporters in the nations they occupied. The policy of keeping those of a lesser quality was obviously preferable to maintain their cave-man system. It has been a cruel world for those truly blessed. I'll never play nice with the enemy. I'd rather die. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, do you honestly think we are trying to "exterminate" you? We just want you to stop edit warring, stop being snarky, stop WP:OWNing the page, and stop vandalizing, plus follow the policies laid out before you.  If you continue, you will be blocked indef, which I honestly think you are trying to do.  Continue down this path and that is what will happen.  Stop now, relax, take a break, read up on policies and come back with fresh and calm eyes. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Marysville, Ohio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment on this. Although in some cases, it appears you might have (objectively) a valid point, you are not convincing other editors of this. Discussion on the Talk page is a recommended way of getting your point across, whereas edit summaries are just terse. In particular, removing article improvement tags without addressing the issues they raise is not recommended. I note you have previously been blocked for edit-warring, and I will say this once, and once only: if you revert any editor on Marysville, Ohio without citing a cast-iron source, or achieving consensus on the Talk page I personally will block you again for disruptive editing, and my blocks are known for being fair rather than lenient. I have now watchlisted this article, and your contributions. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  22:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Marysville, Ohio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 04:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you have been warned in the past, I have taken this to AIV and let them decide. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * STOP NOW! -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for continued attempts at article ownership and edit warring after repeated warnings and a previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have revoked your access to this talk page for the remainder of the block. Should you wish to appeal the block, you may do so via Wikipedia email but be aware that abuse of that will result in the loss of it and possibly an extension of your block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you don't have Wikipedia email enabled, so you may contact me at hjmitchell [at] ymail [dot] com if you wish to. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Columbus
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Economy of Columbus, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Economy of Columbus, Ohio. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the future, never ever copy and paste contents from one article into another in an attempt to move the article title, since that means the edit history is lost, which would then violate the license other editors have contributed under. Just use the "Move" function, or ask an admin for help. I'll fix the current problem. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Columbus, Ohio
Hi there, when you're making additions to articles please keep WP:SIZE in mind. The article is already large as it is. Thanks, §hep  Talk  01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. About done. Probably have to split it up into new articles like Walker did with the economy. Those dam living encyclopedias just keep growing! :) Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Columbus, Ohio. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I don't like having to template regulars. Please discuss any further additions on the talk page of the article. This back-and-forth is not acceptable and I'll report any further actions to AN3. §hep Talk  22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Geez, here comes the peanut gallery. Sit on your hands at Ohio Stadium and poo poo real fans while reading Ray Stein's columns?

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Insulting someone who works to make this place run smoother. Real smart of you. Also, I had to google who "Ray Stein" is...I don't read sports columns. Be nice, §hep  Talk  01:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Bisexuality
Hey there, I reverted your edits on Bisexuality that had been previously reverted by another Wikipedia user. At best, the insertion of the other flags were non-standard, but I feel I might be detecting some bias. For example, there was a link to a site involving polyamory, which is very different from bisexuality. There were also strange references to a "Polyamory bisexuals" section on the Bisexual community page, yet such a section doesn't exist. Could you please help me understand your changes? Thanks! Kedster</B> (talk / contribs) 06:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding more, wait until finished. Detecting a homosexual supremacist who initially reverted the original posts. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be respectful — I was assuming good faith in your edits, however two Wikipedia users have now reverted your edits on Bisexuality. If you weren't done, please don't save until you're finished.  Thanks!  <B>Kedster</B> (talk / contribs) 06:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It'd be cool if there were respectful editors. Many like to blame the effect on this site, not the cause. These reverts are just like the homosexual supremacists in the LGBT political establishment who ban bisexuals/polyamories from there events because they don't adhere to them politically. Politics has become their main identity, not any real distinctive culture.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cease and desist with your disruptive edits and highly aggressive tone. Your political and indeed conspiratorial beliefs are not relevant here, and if you continue to push your own agenda on Wikipedia, as you have many times in the past, you will be reported to an administrator. Use the talk page to reach consensus before making controversial edits. Thank you. KaySL (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
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. KaySL (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people&#32;as you did at Bisexual community, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It appears that you're engaged in an edit war on these two pages. <B>Kedster</B> (talk / contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Sexual eugenics for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. KaySL talk 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Ferocious osmosis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. KaySL talk 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerhard von Mende
just wanted to say nice work on Gerhard von Mende Decora (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Helen Butler, Countess of Ossory


The article Helen Butler, Countess of Ossory has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The subject of this biographical article may not be notable. The lead says that she was a daughter of a viscount, married an earl, and lived in a castle. None of these facts establish notability. The article is sourced to Lodge (1789) but the mention is trivial."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)