User talk:Litch

Pickled eggs[edit]

I rewrote the farting section of thepickled egg article. Holme053 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I blocked this user. He requested unblock. My block was reviewed and confirmed by Samir. Further unblock was placed. If any admin wishes to remove this protection, please feel free. Tyrenius 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for a bit to let him explain himself -- Samir धर्म 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a second unblock because in my impatience it seemed Samir had wandered off. WHen I noticed he then added a comment I removed the second unnblock. I then asked for an explanation of why Samir felt the block was approriate and rather than allow that discussion and possible education Tyrenius protected the page so further discussion could not take place. In this entire process [User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] has always taken the most punative, confrontational approach available rather than even attempting reasonable rationed discussion. Litch 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Litch, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Domino Harvey[edit]

Hi, regarding the above article, could you please cite sources for the various names you are adding to the article as the people who allegedly found her dead? Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite, please take the time to read the entire citation before reverting. [1] Litch Mon Jul 10 06:34:43 PDT 2006

I did indeed read that report and it states that a "Peter Dice" found her, not either of the two people you are trying to write into the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name corrected. Please avoid editing my entries if at all possible, I believe you have begun to take this personally, I have. Litch

I have not taken this personally and I will not refrain from editing your contribtions if you continue to add false information. I would also ask you to avoid using edit summaries to make false allegations about other editor's alleged laziness. Thankyou and goodnight. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to User:Sarah Ewart during July 10 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Srose (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were not nonsense, they were sourced and accurate. Litch 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were a direct personal attack and will lead to you getting blocked if you continue. If you have a serious issue with Sarah Ewart you should present it to her in a civil fashion in order to resolve the problem. Tyrenius 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, noting people find her abrasive (as was evidence in the citation and in her own talk) is not an attack, but an accurate description. I even went so far as to modify the comment and remove the suggestion she was lazy (as was made manifest by the fact that rather than correcting a problem or adding to an entry she simply reverted it) since she objected to it so strenuosly. I attempted to resolve our conflict politely and she spit on me lexically so I thought it approriate to give fair warning to any other poor soul she harasses. Litch 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because the information you were attempting to add was patently false and not supported by the link you were citing as evidence. I then came here and quite nicely asked you to please explain. You then became rather nasty, accused me of being "lazy" and began posting personal attacks about me. For someone who claims to want me to avoid them, you sure are going out of your way to make sure you continue interacting with me. I suggest you let it go and move on. If you ensure your future edits are correct and you refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries and vandalising other user's pages, I am sure you will not have these problems. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just FYI, one of the people you accuse of being my "sockpuppet" is an Administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that he's threating me and trying to intimidate me rather than let a mediation process unfold I doubt he should be an administrator. I'm new but I am at least trying to follow community standards, you on the other hand consistantly seem to irritate people. I note someone else has a new complaint regarding your editing ~~and that you were blocked by the 3 Revision Rule in the Domino_Harvey entry~~. The preponderance of evidence clearly shows who is in the wrong.Litch 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked for 3RR or anything else. For evidence, please see the block log: [2]. Please cease making false accusations. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have been if I had not been making changes amid your revert war on me. Litch 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from this behaviour[edit]

I consider your behaviour through the edit dispute on Domino Harvey [3] and subsequently to amount to harassment of Sarah Ewart. Since my warning above about your posts on her user page,[4] you have now posted another unnecessarily provocative comment on her talk page.[5]. The next time you make unwarranted comments in this way concerning her, I will block you. Tyrenius 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that wikipedia worked on concensus and not fiat, I have submitted a request for mediation but rather than conform to the community standards and allow that process to expand you have instead decided to use your power and postion to intervene on behalf of someone who is obviously your friend. You are clearly a textbook example of some of the fundamental criticisms of this venue.Litch 01:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that harrassment will result in being blocked. If you behave civilly and refrain from personal insults, then you will not have a problem. Tyrenius 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe what I am doing is harassment, I made no personal insults and instead noted only the feelings of others about Ms Ewart and went out of my way to make such a description inoffensive. You are obviously biased towards a friend (or is it lover?). You were aware of the mediation request but unwilling to allow that process to unfold you instead threaten and intimidate me.Litch 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I am blocked by what I consider to be immature aggression by Tyrenius abusing his perogatives. I would like for him to remove the block and, if he feels it is absoloutely necessary to have me blocked to have it done by a neutral third party. Litch 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC) {{unblock}}[reply]

I'm a neutral third party admin. Explain why you wish to be unblocked a bit further. -- Samir धर्म 03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of contention is whether my actions with regard to sarah_ewart were harassment, I have avoided editing her talk page as ordered to by Tyrenius and he nevertheless blocked me. Litch 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for then turning your attack onto me as seen above and on my talk page. This includes insinuations about my private life. Tyrenius 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below regarding my comment to you. I made no insinuations regarding your private life, I mearly was attempting to be accurate as to why you were behaving immaturely in my conflict with your friend sarah_ewart if you objected to the reference to her being your lover (the only explanation I could come up with for such an extreme reaction) you had merely to note it and I would remove it. Litch 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for harrassment and personal attacks, following your post above and here, after two warnings. Tyrenius 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice was neither harassing nor an attack, it was an appeal for you to act in a mature fashion and resist abusing your perogatives, but you apparently could not. I'll also note you only provided a warning regarding her talk page. Litch 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Reviewed the entire situation and I think the block is appropriate. -- Samir धर्म 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain in more detail Litch 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You called another user lazy in an edit summary, placed an inappropriate message on her user page, inappropriately accused her of sockpuppetry on her talk page (without citing any evidence for the same) and then ignored administrative warnings by User:Tyrenius above. You topped it off with:

You are obviously biased towards a friend (or is it lover?). as seen above

Warnings were given. This is clearly enough for a block -- Samir धर्म 04:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider simple reversion rather than a easy fix when she had the information (if as she said she read the citation)lazy, what would be a better descriptor? When she objected to that word I tried to avoid using it from them on, going back to remove it in my addition to her user page.

I do not think my message was inapproriate and opened a mediation request to address it and did not touch her page after she reverted it.

[evidence] of srose behaving like a sockpuppet.

I did not ignore the warning I attempted to engage him to understand his objection and he responded with nothing but threat and intimidation

Also, please don't delete messages. I'd take a couple of hours off wikipedia, come back, and contribute again after that.

Thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have deleted any messages, what do you mean? And since I am blocked, I have no choice, but considering blocking someone you don't like because you can is apparently the standard of behavior what sort of inducement is there to come back? Litch 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletes: [6]. The block stands for now. If you remain disatisfied, you may bring it up for review at WP:ANI after the 24 hour block period terminates. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletes. I only added a square bracket to a previous post to make the formatting work correctly. As far as I know I never deleted those line and have no idea why they went away. I assume it was just some sort of near edit conflict that happened inadvertently, please do not assume maliciousness.

Your new post[edit]

If a good job consists of blocking a new user for what is at most arguable reasons and then protecting their talk page, what would be bad job? Litch 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regard that post as unnecessary, provocative and continuation of your previous harrassment.

I'm sorry you feel that way, what in particular do you object to? I consider your actions in response to this situation immature, aggressive, and excessive. I really would like to know what a "bad job" would be in this situation, as your behavior untill now has heavyhanded, intimidating, punative and harsh. Litch 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore it on this occasion, so you've had a chance to express your opinion. A continuation in the same vein will, however, just result in a longer block.

And this helps the effort to build an encyclopedia in what way?

We're here to write an encyclopedia, so I urge you to focus your attention on that. Then you will make friends and become part of the community. You obviously have a capable mind, so you could make some good contributions and add something worthwhile to the world.

Tyrenius 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've taken my advice and chosen to act in a more mature, verbal manner, perhaps we might even come to a concensus that doesn't involve you ramming your opinions down my throat simply because you can and I've offended one of your friends. Litch 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I spoke too soon Litch 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

This block follows on from previous personal abuse for which you were blocked. After your return, and despite a further warning, you continued.[7] Block is now for 72 hours. Tyrenius 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Litch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

As below the fact that you cannot understand your actions to be a personal attack means that I cannot unblock at this time

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is rediculous, the referenced "personal attack" was a post a made on the [wp:pain | personal attach intervention board] asking for help understanding what I said that was objectionable. I did not make a personal attack of any kind, Tyrenius is apparently engaging in a vengetta to harm me. Litch 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't see accusing another user of "immature vindictiveness" as an attack on them? --pgk^(talk) 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was describing how I saw his actions (and noted that explicitly) and asking if my impressions of the behavior were reasonable and accurate. It would have been the work of moments to respond and explain, discuss, or even suggest an alternate method of expressing such an impression. Instead he just banned me again.Litch 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that not an attack? Dress is up in whatever words you want, you were accusing the admin of "immature vindictiveness". You could have easily expressed your concern that the block may have not been warranted without attacking the person doing the blocking. --pgk^(talk) 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was (and am) accusing him of just that, but an accusation is not an attack. Litch 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An accustation is an attack. Since you cannot see that your actions are an unacceptable attack means that I cannot unblock. Continue in this manner after the block expires and you are likely to find yourself getting further blocked. --pgk^(talk) 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite something other than your simple assertion to support your position? The [| relevent entry] in Webster describes attack as "to assail with unfriendly or bitter words" (and then goes on to circularly define "assail" as an attack) and describes [| accuse] as "to charge with an offense judicially or by a public process". I will grant that some accusations are attacks, but they are not synonyms. A criminal prosecutor is not attacking a defendant in court. There is a world of difference between the motivations and subsequent responses to the two verbs. I admit I am bitter about the experience I endured, as I believe any reasonable person would be. Certainly if there was a forum where some lattitude for some ambiguity and forbarance was approriate it is a talk board devoted to addressing and defining personal attacks. I did not follow the admin, nor did I make any particular attempt to provoke them, I was honestly looking for constructive feedback and education. Instead I just got banned again. Litch 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you constructive feedback and education and you ignored it:

We're here to write an encyclopedia, so I urge you to focus your attention on that. Then you will make friends and become part of the community. You obviously have a capable mind, so you could make some good contributions and add something worthwhile to the world.

I suggest you put it into practice when your block ends, and study what pgk has said above. Tyrenius 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whee, if I suck up to people like you I might get them to block people behaving in ways I don't like, that's so compelling and such an inducement. Of course it really doesn't matter too much, as past evidence demonstrates, at the slighted shred of justification you'll just ban me for longer until you can ban me interminably. I've accepted that and while I like this user name I suppose I can find another that you haven't targetted. Litch 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab request[edit]

We've received your MedCab request to take a look at last week's happenings. I've asked the three other users involved to give me their side of the story, if you could drop by my userpage or find me on IRC, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

Keep in mind, though, that this isn't the time for conclusions, closing arguments, or fish-slapping dances...just trying to find out what happened and what I can do to get things moving again. :-) Do stop by at your earliest convenience. CQJ 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Received your message just now. You posted a lot, so I just basically cut and pasted and followed your comments down and wrote as I went. Sometimes, when on an RC patrol or checking a watchlist on an article, you don't really have the time to check a source or a link (hence why we have the fact citation tag or the reference tag) and just revert off the cuff. Also, keep in mind that I'm not lecturing you, picture my comments in a type of grandfatherly voice or something :-)

thank you for taking the time to wade through it, I appreciate both the substance and the tone of your advice

I guess what really got this situation going was what you've admitted to as "childishly allowing [your] frustration" and then heading off to her user talk page and asking you to avoid edting your entries if possible. This flies in the general face of WP:OWN. As editors, once we click the 'Save Page' button, the content goes to the database server and off to merciless editing by our colleagues, regardless of who they are. It is possible that Sarah was insulted by this request (especially with the edit summary you left), while you may have been making it in good faith, please realize for your own wiki-sanity that no one owns anything on Wikipedia, not even technically their own user spaces.

Minor correction, I asked her to avoid me on my talk page not hers.

You are a newbie, so I'll try and explain this as best as I can. Often, we as editors, whether RC patrollers or administrators have to simply be merciless and to the point as possible due to the number of people that really aren't here for admirable reasons. It's really nothing personal, and I don't think it was at the point of harassment - I think your edit summary tipped the scales at that point in time.

What you did do incorrect, IMHO, is when you went to her user page and made the comments that you did. While we don't own our userspaces, it is generally an unspoken rule that one user doesn't tamper with another user's user page unless there is a clear cut violation of Wikipedia policy. What you happened to do comes within the definition and scope of WP:NPA, especially on her user page.

unspoken rules aren't very useful

I understand your position, but what I meant was that the "unspoken rule" is mentioned within the policy pages but it has not been implemented as "official policy" as of yet. Sorry.

Srose saw the personal attack, reverted it, and tagged your user talk page inadvertently with a nonsense warning tag, and he/she has apologized for that at the MedCab case page. If you go look at the pages in question, there was another editor who was talking with Srose at that time (I'm not sure if it was Sarah or Tyrenius). If you look, it was another editor and not a sockpuppet. Tyrenius was reacting to the personal attack on Sarah's user page and was within his scope as an administrator, I'm afraid.

Once you went on about the bias for a friend or lover, and made the comment about biting a newbie, that topped the cake for Tyrenius and he subsequently blocked you. It was probably the friend or lover comment that really nailed that coffin shut. On the unblock, what usually happens is if one administrator reviews the unblock request and declines it, and a second or third unblock request comes in, the page can be protected because each time the unblock template is used, it sends a message to an IRC channel and flags your page as an unblock request, and administrators usually have to have a good reason to unblock a user or face wheel warring allegations by another administrator.

As to everything around the PAIN incident, I must admit that some of your comments to Tyrenius sound a bit snide and border on WP:NPA.

What probably didn't help in this case was your use of the term sockpuppet. That's generally something that a new user doesn't know about, nor has any clue what one is. It may have tagged you as a previously banned user or someone evading a block. From your language, I would not have known that you are a newbie - the only reason I know that you are is I have checked back against your contributions. Anyways..that's besides the point.

sockpuppets were a term used on usenet for years before wikipedia ever came around

Again, understandable as Wikipedia has quite a bit of old usenet users.

Srose has apologized for calling your posts nonsense at the MedCab page. As for returning your abrasiveness note to Sarah's user page, we can't do that. It's blatantly against WP:NPA and no editor in his or her right mind would revert that unless he or she were willing to be blocked themselves. As for asking Sarah to stay away from your edits or you period, I can't ask her to do that, but I'm pretty sure that she will, or any other editor for that manner will, as long as you follow the policy trifecta and keep your nose clean. A slimmed-down version of what I've said to you here appears at the MedCab case, and if you're okay with it, I'd like to close the case as a simple misunderstanding. Thanks for your quick response. CQJ 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help is there were some sort of note about her editorial style on her page for the next newbie's work she casually dismisses & reverts in the way she did mine. I understand it can't be forced and it's obviously that she'll reject any suggestion I might make but I was hoping that coming from someone else might it induce her to at least consider such a warning and stave off any similar future disturbances.

Beyond that the only other issue from this is Tyrenius's behavior. I understand he is a new admin but I have suffered from what he did, if what I said and did were WP:NPA worthy of being banned for four days than his allegations as to my motives in your talk page merits a warning at the very least. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider the situation and giving me the benefit of the doubt. Litch 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, really. If we were to put a note on Sarah's page about her editorial style and her "casually dismissing and reverting", then we'd have to do the same to every single RC patroller and copy-editor, because that's essentially what they do - casually dismiss and revert vandalism and mistakes in copy.

As to Tyrenius, I looked at what happened diff-by-diff (er, change by change) before I got a hold of Srose, Tyrenius, Sarah, and you for your sides of what happened. You got the second three day block in my view from going back and messing with him after your first block expired. I'm not sure there's an administrator on Wikipedia who'd not block you in simliar circumstances. But, with that said, there's no reason to suffer from being temporarily blocked. Consider it a three-day Wiki-break, and the only way it will negatively affect your standing here in the future is if you were to descend into another similar incident, that is to say, engage in WP:NPA, with another editor and be subsequently blocked. That is when the powers-that-be place you on the radar screen and start watching for more shenanigans. I'd take this as a learning experience and move on from there.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and if you have future questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'm going to close the MedCab case as I feel we've accomplished for you what we can. Happy editing, and best of luck in your future endeavors. CQJ 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warnings for removal of content[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Salk Institute for Biological Studies, you will be blocked from editing. Your edit removed the unreferenced tag and company importance tag. If you have a question to as why a article is tagged, please dicuss on the talk page before any removal. Thank you.—User:Christopher Mann McKay 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to apologize at length regarding your inability to read your own citation.

I removed the second vandal warning I gave you, as I had an "inability" to read my own citation and foolishly accused you for something that was not warranted. My apologies. I will never make the mistake of not reading a template and then accusing someone of violating it again. I will try to avoid you, as you requested. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's remarkably more mature than I am capable of being. I apologize in turn for any aggravation I caused.Litch 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Alexyss K. Tylor[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Alexyss K. Tylor, by SkierRMH (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alexyss K. Tylor seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alexyss K. Tylor, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Alexyss K. Tylor itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Alexyss K. Tylor entry=[edit]

I asked that it not be deleted and noted several arguments in favor of it's inclusion which you igorned and simply deleted. Litch 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no claim of notability anywhere on the page. Please see WP:NOTABLE to see the guidelines used on Wikipedia to determine whether someone should be written about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the talk page, ever heard of WP:AGF]? Further you utterly ignored the hangon tag.Litch 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be in the article, and I don't think you quite understand AGF the way you think you might. Finally, hangon isn't binding, it's a request. If the argument on the discussion page isn't persuasive, then the admin can use their judgment. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where it has to be noted is not mentioned anywhere in the notability article and you noted you never even bothered to look at the talk page to consider the argumentLitch 16:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I read the talk page, and the argument was not persuasive. If you have any objections, feel free to engage WP:DRV for a deletion review. If you object to my conduct, feel free to post a complaint to WP:AN/I. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your message on my talk page[edit]

Sorry, it makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you care to be more specific and be polite about it, I'd be happy to look into whatever you deemed so problematic. I have hundreds of articles on my watch page and most of them are the type of article subject to vandalism or scatological humor vandalism from school ISP accounts. Please link to the article in question or the edit in question when leaving a comment. If I made a mistake, I apologize. Thank you.LiPollis (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR notification[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eric S. Raymond. 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. JBsupreme (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP are not subject to the 3RR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litch (talk • contribs) 2009-12-24T14:44:30

I think you may be confused - the policy covering biographies of living persons exempts from the normal edit warring rules any revert of potentially libelous material or otherwise blatantly inappropriate edit. Please also abide by the policy of no personal attacks regarding other editors. You may also wish to consider KDP's contributions, as your statement at Talk:Eric S. Raymond seems at odds with his usual reputation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric S. Raymond[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Eric S. Raymond, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please note that I just added this due to the recent edit warring over blog-sourced references to the subject's global warming views, so obviously it was not under probation at the time of your recent edits. --TS 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Litch. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OlYeller^Talktome 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not letting your accusations go. I've been waiting for you to start editing again so that I can remind you of our conversation you started here. I'd like you to address my concerns before you move on to other areas of WP. OlYeller^Talktome 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied here. Telling me to "bite you" doesn't really help anything. I didn't remove the content, I modified it to remove a strong point of view, remove a user's signature, and substitute blog references with references from very reliable sources. Please stay away from my talk page from now on. If you want to discuss the article, please do so on its talk page. OlYeller^Talktome 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You're receiving a first-and-only warning regarding this because you chose to dig into user Talk page archives to leave your message, which goes a bit beyond the pale. You are also notified that a discussion regarding this matter has begun at WP:ANI. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hey Litch. I brought up a case about our interactions at WP:ANI. The discussion can be found here. OlYeller^Talktome 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Timothy Messer-Kruse[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Timothy Messer-Kruse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could use a cookie & a hug[edit]

I just checked my watchlist and your edit to your front User Page came up. Man, You DESERVE a cookie and a hug for whatever fresh hell you've been going through, especially since you too have been dealing the Pickle Egg Fart people! LiPollis (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Compromise on Oak Creek shooting[edit]

Hello, Litch. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Litch. You have new messages at ComputerJA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BTW, I'll be busy for some hours. BRB. ComputerJA (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Toronto Star, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unknown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"widely derided claims"[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Melissa Harris-Perry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted text was neither commentary now personal anysis. I have reverted and expanded, if you disagree get a third person opinion before engaging in a revision war.Litch (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Sundayclose, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notifications[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Gamaliel (talk)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Litch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Litch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Litch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Titans (2018 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starfire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Titans (2018 TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 09:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Titans (2018 TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Alex^TW 09:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

You are one edit away from being blocked. I suggest you read WP:3RR and WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Litch reported by User:Jauerback (Result: ). Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]