User talk:Azcat90

Welcome!

Hello, Azcat90, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart111 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lois Lerner

Current consensus is that Lois Lerner falls under WP:BIO1E guidelines - that is, she is notable for only one event, and there do not appear at this time to be sufficient encyclopedic sources to write an article about her life, as opposed to her involvement in the controversy - which should be covered in 2013 IRS scandal. If you believe that there are sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic biography, I suggest that you write a draft in your userspace first and then propose that it be moved into articlespace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Fawn Hall has her own page I don't see the distinction. Above user is an employee of the U.S. Federal Government which represents a conflict of interest and could influence opinion on whether there is sufficient encyclopedic sources to write an article about Ms. Lerner's life. Azcat90 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There might, at some future point, be sufficient sources to do so, if Lerner becomes as noted a figure as Fawn Hall. At this point, there do not appear to be such.

Again, I have suggested to you a course of action - if you write a draft in userspace, you can then propose that it be included, and if there are a significant number of reliable sources cited as to her life and work, it is likely to gain consensus for inclusion.

I have no connection with the agency in question. There is no conflict of interest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources are a work in progress which keeps getting erased. There is no disputing that Lois G. Lerner is now a public figure. Azcat90 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you create a page at User:Azcat90/Lois Lerner, you can create the draft there without interference from anyone, including me. That is what userspace is for. I would recommend that you consult the biographies of living persons policy and the reliable sources guideline to understand what is and is not considered reliable on Wikipedia.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Azcat. I've not blocked you for this because you seemed to indicate that you will stop edit warring. That's good to see, and I'm pleased I can avoid having to block anyone; just be aware that if you do continue to edit war, you will find yourself blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)