User talk:Sdth

Your note

I'm willing to take a look if you tell me which article, but I have to tell you that Gamaliel is a good editor and respected administrator, so you'd do well to try to cooperate with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert article. There are a number of POV problems with that article which I have tried to correct. I will admit that I had an axe to grind, and ticked him off, but I have apologized, and asked him to tell me where he disagrees with me, and to try to work it out, and he refuses to discuss it. Just goes in and reverts my edits without discussion. He has NEVER been willing to discuss it, in my opinion, but is even less likely to discuss it now. Sdth 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friendly Question

I'm not familiar with the specific edit or source in question but it is perfectly acceptable to question the use of a source. The way to counteract a sourced disputed assertion is with sourced info, however. You can also look into possibly getting a consensus on removing the disputed source from the article. But don't edit war over it (I don't know if you have or have not) and don't add original research to counter it.

As for separation of church and state, you can't get a good view of someone beliefs from a userbox.  :) I do support the separation of church and state. History shows that when they are combined, horrors like the Inquisition, and the genocides in Africa occur. I am also against religious leaders using their churches as political centers to pump an ideology, or a political party. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" However, I don't think that the government helping to fund a faith based organization, having God in the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, opening Congress with a prayer, or swearing on a Bible is the establishment of any religion, or in any violates the separation of Church and state. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I've semi-protected and I left the anon a warning. Thanks for looking after the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Cameron. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have a very strong agenda, which is very biased. You have a history of protecting your pro-homosexual agenda. YOUR edits and reversions to Paul Cameron's article are very biased and non-factual. Perhaps it is I who should be reporting YOU for disruptive edits.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to recently deceased or living people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)