User talk:Greg Comlish/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hi Greg. You just seem to be popping up everywhere these days :) Dsol (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Española Valley High School. I did not remove the tag, User:75.91.163.47 did. A couple of editors have been removing "citation needed" tags on an ongoing basis in this article, so I have removed some of the unsourced claims. If the claims are re-added, the user will be warned for adding unreferenced information. I just think they need to be blocked for a bit, since they don't seem to be responding to reason. ... discospinster _talk 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(re [1]) Thanks for the funny message. =) I'm afraid I don't have any good advice about starting a content-oriented WikiProject, since my project is/was about typographic quality and mostly was about getting many people to contribute a small amount of time doing an easy task. Improving the quality of the content, especially for subjects that take some expertise, will be a lot harder to recruit people for. Still, there's little harm in creating a WikiProject (you just do it) and trying to recruit some people... perhaps by looking at people who have made good contributions, or by recruiting from related WikiProjects. Probably the best thing to do is to hold improvement drives for specific articles that need it. I don't really have any expertise in investment to contribute (though, now that I've finally entered the workforce, I will probably have to start caring about it!), sadly... — brighterorange (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If the image is uploaded to the English Wikipedia see, here: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images. If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, see this: Commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

much of the material on the THS page is just thrown out and it looks like a mess! there is no sources to back up information just a bunch of dates!..on the evhs as well but only on a few items we couldnt find sources for, together lets work on the THS page and i will remove the citations needed box and the EVHS page as well because on the EVHS page most of the stuff is acurate, well i know much as being an alumni student that graduated and my father is on the board so most of the evhs article is well kept to date. Martinez07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.50.208 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg - Thanks for your message. During a recent Arbitration Committee case, there were indications that a few business-related articles may have been the subject of biased editing. The applicable section of the decision, which identifies the articles most seriously in question, is here:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and Gary Weiss should carefully review these and related articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.[2]

While following this case, I made some personal inquiries in particular about the Naked short selling article, and had a couple of friends who are financial specialists look at this article; they did feel there was a subtle but definite bias in the article. In the past week or so, there has been more editing of the articles listed above; much of it has been done by editors who were previously involved and/or actively participated in the arbitration case, so it's a tad difficult to realistically assess whether or not the bias has been eradicated or bolstered. Their history is very challenging; all four of these articles were created with at least some degree of outside influence. The articles do need some independent, knowledgeable eyes to ensure they're coming closer to our hoped-for standards. Thanks very much for offering to take a look. I hope you don't mind if I post a link to this conversation on the talk pages of the two arbitration committee members who were most active in drafting the decision, so that they will know someone has taken an interest.

Best, Risker (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And further to the above, FT2 has expressed a willingness to act as a resource in reviewing and revising these articles[3]. He's had quite a bit of experience in dealing with "difficult" articles, and I think you will find him very helpful. Risker (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not "move" articles by copying-and-pasting the text elsewhere, as you did with Zecco. Doing destroys the page history which must be preserved for any page move. In future, please use the "move" link at the top of a page to move pages. Thanks. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Sandia Preparatory School has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, and I wish the project great prosperity. As I mentioned on the project talk page, should template assistance ever be needed in the future, just let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re I believe you can give barnstars any time you want (particularly if you make up your own), but their value diminishes if they are given haphazardly. — brighterorange (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, you really should read the entire conversation that took place on different talk pages. Taostiger was offered help several times with citing sources and removing POV from the article. Read Talk:Taos High School for just some of the conversation that took place. I have a question for you. When you said some other editors are "tight asses" and "aggrieved people in this world who just enjoy pushing people around through whatever pathetic and desperate measures they can," to whom were you referring? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the talk page in its entirety. There is no evidence that these high school students have promulgated a single falsehood, committed a single act of vandalism, or engaged in any malicious edits whatsoever. All I see is a group of new users who are unfamiliar with the norms of wikipedia who are trying to make honest and constructive edits and being vaguely uncivil on the talk pages when (fairly) pointing out that wikipedia standards are not consistently applied. And your claim that help was offered several times is just laughably false. Way more false, for instance, that any edits Taostiger has ever made.

It is quite obvious that these kids feel that they are being picked on. Right now the most likely outcome of this conflict is that a quality group of students is going to be discouraged from contributing to wikipedia again. If that happens, who knows how many quality edits we lose in the long run?

The most valuable resource we have at wikipedia are the diverse group of editors and when good editors are discouraged in their nascent stages then the future of the encyclopedia is compromised. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question to who you were referring when you made those personal attacks. BTW, you weren't involved in the entire discussion, so you really don't know what the hell you're talkin about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, when I called "some editors" "aggrieved" "tight-asses" that was impersonal and therefore not a personal attack. Your saying that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about" constitutes a personal attack. Somaybe instead of making unjustified claims that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about", you could use wikipedia's retained edit history to correct my alleged misconceptions? Greg Comlish (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of my "laughably false" offers of help. 1, 2, 3. P.S. If you think what I said was a personal attack, you're getting desperate to prove a non-existant point. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 is just you stating that "pummeling" is not POV. 2 is just you ordering TaosTiger to read WP:CITE. These aren't offers to help at all. These are just examples of you acting like a typical wikipedia authority figure. I really don't understand how somebody who repeatedly postures as a stalwart of wikipedia standards could resort to such transparently deceptive (not to mention pointless) tactics as promulgating a false citations. Again, the ethical contrast is clear. You get on Taostiger's case for posting true-but-uncited material while you have apparently no qualms about making dubious statements yourself and backing them up with objectively false citations.

The first "help" offered in 1 is a curious kind of help. Rather than explain why it is impossible that THS article be allowed briefly describe the town of Taos, you simply defer to a manufactured consensus, link to WP:CONSENSUS and generously offer to "help" Taostiger decide what is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Basically, you're offering to "help" by substituting your own judgment for Taostiger's.

The second offer of "help if you want" in 1 is reluctant but plausibly sincere.

Now let's stand back and objectively think about what has happened/is happening with regards the THS article: the THS article that all editors purport to care so much about is now entirely neglected while all editors that could be improving the article are instead involved personal conflicts. Why? Because some wikipedians wanted to take a hardline against briefly describing Taos in an article about Taos High School. A more tactful approach could have avoided what has become a significant conflict. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you still rambling about this? You're beating a dead horse. FYI, thomasalazar and taostiger "made up" and got over their differences, the high school article has been (very) mildly improved by you (although you didn't cite the refs correctly...there are few, if any, RS about this school...hence the lack of edits by me and others to cite the article), and your b.s. analysis of my edits (ex: "ordering" to read? oh really? I'm curious as to how I ordered) is pathetic and shows how you're being deceptive with judging my offers of help. The high school article isn't a "significant conflict" and I suggest you get over it and do something productive besides ramble on about an argument that took place almost 2 weeks ago. Feel free to reply here, but I'm done arguing with someone who is bored enough to analyze and lie about my edits to a high school article. Get a hobby, preferably one not related to WP. APK ^{yada yada} 10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I bet you don't want to argue with somebody who is "bored enough to analyze" your edits because said "bored" person would actually examine your bogus citations and instantly see that you are full of it.

Let me answer your original question: Who I was referring to when I suggested that some editors on wikipedia are "tight asses and aggrieved people who enjoy pushing people around through whatever pathetic and desperate measures they can?" The answer: Definitely not AgnosticPreachersKid! No-siree! If there's anything I've learned in this thread it's that APK cares first about improving the articles on wikipedia. He cares not at all about pursuing minor personal vendettas.

Should you ever encounter a user who has some lingering confusion about whether his edits constitute tight-assed grievance, just refer him to me. Of course, I would be happy to help. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right on Greg!! Great Response on this. You are my inspiration on wikipedia man! You have been a great example since the begining keep up the great good work. And i have every reason to belive that was not attack.

... TomSalazar _Chat?! 9:50 MT, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Example of an attack. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg, please don't mark changes where you add (or remove) content or citations as minor. Those are significant changes to an article, even if you are only doing one at a time. Take a look at Help:Minor edit for more information on when to mark changes as minor and when not to do so. Thanks! Aleta ^Sing 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aleta,

Help:Minor edit does not dictate whether the simple addition of a citation is considered a minor edit or not. Help:Minor edit suggests that minor edits may be used whenever the fundamental meaning of the article is unchanged which arguably would apply to the addition of citations. Personally I could see it go either way, but I'd prefer that discussion take place on the Minor edit talk page instead of here.Greg Comlish (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been requested to weigh in at:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

Thank you for your help in this matter. IP4240207xx (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby. I really appreciate that! ... discospinster _talk 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is filled with factual errors, dishonest presumptions, and quotes from inconsequential far-left bloggers.

The first two sentences dishonestly present Hoyer’s reputation in Congress; but it really is stating Hoyer’s reputation among far-left bloggers. Hoyer has an outstanding reputation in Congress, as evident by his elected position of Majority Leader.

Most of the bills listed as evidence of Hoyer conspiring with Bush and Republicans are in fact widely popular bipartisan bills that passed with a majority of Democrats.

Hoyer did not draft the bankruptcy bill.

Hoyer did not vote for the Terry Schiavo intervention.

Hoyer fundraising and his Leadership PAC are nothing but typical for any member of Congressional Leadership of either party.

David Sirota is an inconsequential far-left blogger, not an authority on Congress or a progressive leader.

There is no citation for the lobbyist citing the bankruptcy bill. This was probably made-up.

Where are the Wikipedia editors who stand up for the principle of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW?!?! This is a disgrace.Caphillstaffer (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I replied on the Steny Hoyer talk page. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:NNAA 3A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Uncia (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:NNAA 5A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Uncia (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:NNAA 5A is still open for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 10#New Mexico Activities Association Navboxes. If you want to save it, you need to make your case there. The decision to keep or delete is made by the admins, not by me.

My gripe with these navboxes is that they are not accurate, but I think Happy-melon made an even better point at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 29#Template:NNAA 3A, namely that they "do not highlight a notable or useful connection between the articles". You need to address the "value added" problem at TfD, since most templates get deleted because they are not useful rather than because they are inaccurate.

Another possibility, which I am not enthusiastic about either but probably would not complain about, would be to create categories for these schools. That is, you might create a category like "NMAA 5A schools" and categorize all those schools into it. As long as you keep it at that level and don't break it down into districts it will be true for most sports because the initial classifications are based on enrollment. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion you supplied but I don't know if there's anything I can contribute immediately. I am not familiar with the rules of high school sports so I would need some time to assimilate this information. I will have a closer look over the weekend. ... discospinster _talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In vein related to the post below, kindly also restore the link to the full text of the Vassiliev Notebooks from the I.F. Stone page. The Vassiliev Notebooks are a collection of 1000+ pages of detailed handwritten notes on Soviet intelligence activities in the United States which contain information about I.F. Stone.

While you correctly note in your edit summary that the linked page does not itself contain any reference to Stone, it would be impracticable (and perhaps misleading) to link to any one page from the Vassiliev Notebooks pertaining to Stone because the entries on Stone are scattered throughout the Notebooks.

All of these entries can be located relatively easily using the Concordance File and File Guide (featured at the top of the page), but selecting a single 'target page' would not give users the opportunity to get the full picture, and draw upon the Notebooks to improve the quality of the page.

__________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.242.121 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this [4] edit of yours to I.F. Stone, I have restored the publisher information and the ISBN number, while deleting mention of translators of some material.

Please don't mistake my sympathies: The allegations of spying in this article do not seem to me to merit the weight given to them, and if you trimmed the bibliographic information for the Spies book out of a desire to re-balance the article, I certainly sympathize with the spirit of the edit. Whoever added this book was clearly grinding an axe; putting the title in bold, locating the entry at the end where it would be more noticeable, adding non-co-author attributions, supplying the only ISBN in the entire "Further Reading" section (at that point) -- all of these errors add at least a smidgen toward undue weight to a certain POV, at least when seen against the background of the rest of "Further Reading".

However, deleting bibliographic information that took somebody some work to find and add with does not improve the article. On the contrary, it makes it worse. Furthermore, it smacks of suppressing information, a definite WP no-no.

I am now trying to add ISBNs for each book mentioned in "Further Reading", while cleaning up the citation style a little -- perhaps this will encourage others working on the article to check and quote sources more carefully, leading to improvements and (I hope) to putting I.F. Stone's contacts with the Soviets into whatever perspective those episodes deserve. Yakushima (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the ISBN number and the list of translators. I explicitly kept the bibliographic entry in the table. [5] Greg Comlish (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In the heading above I wrote "useful bibliographic information", not "useful bibliographic entries", and for a reason. You also deleted the publisher info. Finally, to "explicitly keep" something, you have to explicitly say you're deciding to keep it. Otherwise, well, you're just keeping it. As it turns out, on further inspection and familiarization with Wikification guidelines, the Spies entry probably didn't even belong in "Further Reading", according to WP:FURTHERREADING, since it's already reasonably well-cited in one of the footnotes. I'll probably copy my (slightly improved) Spies cite from Further Reading to that footnote. Unfortunately: even that footnote appears to have become a POV battlefield. And that's the real problem here: too many people are POV-clashing, not enough are really checking sources, thinking clearly, and improving the article. Yakushima (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Gaza flotilla raid appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Your adding of the "compact discs" is not based on the cited source and is factually wrong. The photo shows circular saw blades. Please refrain from adding incorrect and unverifiable material, especially in such controversial subjects.

Referring to this edit [6] Marokwitz (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These claims are categorically false. The IDF Photos prominently show several compact discs[7] which is entirely consistent with the edits I made. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are not compact discs. They are Angle grinder blades . If you enlarge the photo you would see they are of the Bosch brand. Besides being wrong, you are not at liberty to interpret the photo, this is considered WP:OR.Marokwitz (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A few comments:

1) Describing a photo entails describing what is in that photo. And while contributors are working to get a neutral description of the photo, nobody is suggesting that we get rid of the description. If you want to get rid of the description entirely, put your WP:OR concerns on the talk page of the article.

2) My description was based upon a previous version of the photo [8]. This version was substantially lower resolution and did not have an angle grinder within the view.

3) Lastly, I want to emphasize the distinction between a grinder disc and a circular saw blade. A circular saw blade cuts through things and grinder discs are used to smooth surfaces. As ineffective a 'weapon' as a circular saw blade would be, it would be better than a grinder disc. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we don't add our description of the photo based on our own eyes, rather we base it, like all other text, on the sources discussing this photo. The sentence that you edited was based on such written source that didn't mention a compact disc, so that addition was erroneous and not verified by the citation. Discussion of Effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a weapon or whether it is a weapon at all is not of our concern, we should only care about what external sources say and try to keep opinions aside. I'm sure you have done the edit in good faith, in attempt to add useful information to the article, but the end result was a factual error. Marokwitz (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Like I said before, you should take your complaints to the talk page of the article because people are still describing the photo based upon what they see is in the photo. 2) I think your criticism here is far-fetched given that you falsely described the grinder discs are circular saw blades based upon your interpretation of the photo. 3) I haven't made any edits to the article in a week so you're beating a dead horse here. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I never entered the words "circular saw blades" into the article. I simply reverted the incorrect addition of compact discs. In any case, indeed I see no reason to continue the discussion. I just wanted to alert you to your error and nothing more. Take care. Marokwitz (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Española Valley High School.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I created a very small stub article for Lynn Bjorklund. I would like to ask other opinions on both her and Steven Preeg, but I think they could both qualify under low notability. I found an LA Times article where they interview Preeg as a "Hollywood Wizard" for his work on "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and it mentions some of his other work. At this point I'd say he could meet it because of other articles that I've found about him along with the win by his special effects team. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is a blog a reliable source for the first sentence you added? And why isn't the second sentence sourced at all? Please see WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the latest edits to the article. The blog is only one source that I gave. There are other citations I provided to support that paragraph, including one from CampaignMoney.com which gets its data directly from the FEC. Both sentences are explicitly sourced. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CampaignMoney.com doesn't support the statement that 2/3 of ECI's funds came from Loeb. In addition, it is a primary source; we should be using secondary sources.

Finally, you haven't explained why the blog at ThinkProgress.org is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CampaignMoney.com says exactly how much money Loeb gave ECI: $100,000. I've added another link to the article citing how much money EIC took in during the 2010 cycle: $152,475. I trust you can do the division yourself. Like I noted before, CampaignMoney.com gets its information from the FEC; ergo it is not a primary source but a secondary source. I think the ThinkProgress link constitutes a reliable source in this instance for several reasons. One is that the author of the article at ThinkProgress is a reputable journalist who has worked at numerous established news organizations. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Emergency Committee for Israel. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 the changes; 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 without further notice. You are in danger of violating 3rr at Emergency Committee for Israel. Please stop edit warring. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This warning is not appropriate and falsely characterizes my actions. My most recent edit [9] to ECI was meant to find a middle ground between opposing viewpoints by including in additional information that was not in the original edit in accordance with the arguments set forth in the talk page. This change was an attempt to resolve disputes and therefore did not constitute edit warring. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that Emergency Committee for Israel, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. That means that an editor can make only one revert in a 24-hour period.

For more information about reverts, please see WP:3RR. For more information about the restrictions that apply to articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the edit I made was not a "revert" and therefore cannot be in violation of the 3RR. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this article is actual subject to WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restriction. So please revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to the WP:ANEW board. And a revert is not a wholesale revision of another's work (using the undo or rollback tool) but removing another editor's work in whatever form (partially, fully). Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Authentic attempts to resolve editorial disputes on the talk page and improve the article by addressing people's stated concerns are not edit wars but part of the organic process of improving wikipedia. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I offered you the chance to self-revert but because you refused to listen I've reported you to WP:ANEW here: [10] Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whose rules you've been reading, Greg, but Wikipedia's got some very bright line rules about what a revert is, and you've broken 1RR. I join Plot Spoiler in recommending that you self-revert before you are blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you have broken the WP:1RR at Emergency Committee for Israel. You can try to respond at WP:AN3#User:Greg Comlish reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: ) and promise to stop reverting this article. If another admin sees the violation first, it may already be too late. Your motivations in making these edits are irrelevant to the process of counting reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend self-reverting your edit and demonstrating good faith. While I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia, a revert of another user's addition - unless it's blatant, obvious vandalism - is in violation of the 1RR. Please do not make such edits without clearing them with other editors on the talk page. Consider this a final warning; if I see this happen again, I won't hesitate to block. Again, please consider self-reverting. Cheers, m.o.p 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

This notice is being given due to your apparent violation of the WP:1RR restriction at Emergency Committee for Israel, as explained elsewhere on your talk page. The notice should be considered as advice regarding your future behavior. You have not yet been blocked or sanctioned under ARBPIA, and if you are careful to obtain consensus in the future on these articles, you should not have any further problems. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murder of Sunny Sheu. Since you had some involvement with the Murder of Sunny Sheu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sun Ming Sheu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Ming Sheu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at LadyofShalott's talk page. LadyofShalott 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Greg Comlish, you might want to take a look at Michelle Rhee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michelle_Rhee#Test_erasures

Edits by Fishicus and anonymous editors have removed the entire controversy over test scores. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rhee&diff=537669313&oldid=537512866

I reverted them, for the reasons given in Talk, but I expect someone will be deleting them again. Your input would be useful. --Nbauman (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)