User talk:Bunco man

Welcome!

So far you have added content only to Soapy Smith, as your username asserts. You would not happen to know anything about any other confidence trickster? - Skysmith 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back - Skysmith 08:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - Jeff Soapy Smith 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I moved messages frrom your user page to this talk page - you can write a desription of yourself there - Skysmith 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeff. See the Wikipedia manual of style WP:MOS for use of caps in headings. Generally, except for proper names, Wiki prefers only the first heading letter capped. Welcome to Wiki Sbharris 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bunco man, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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!

Soapy Smith external website is spam??

I am having some trouble on the ALASKA page. I have listed my "Soapy" Smith website under external websites and two people keep deleting it. "Soapy" Smith is to Alaska history, what Jesse James is to Missouri history. In fact, "Soapy" is listed as "Alaska's Outlaw." You will find his name is every book on the goldrush there. Most people in Alaska know his name.

I am ready to give up. This is why I did not want to edit on Wikipedia in the first place. I was ASKED to come here. Soapy 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems with content conflicts. It's normal for most external links to be deleted os sight - check out WP:EL for more details. If you think your site is still worthy of being on the page, I think the best solution would be to post on the article's talk page, explain why.

I hope this doesn't stop you from wanting to edit wikipedia - it's not all arguments and conflicts! -- cds^(talk) 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the link and the site, it's a good resource. The reason I would delete it from the Alaska article is that it is not particular to Alaska as a whole; those are the primary external links that you would want to keep for that particular article (eg the state website, census information). I don't think you're spamming or putting in the link for vanity as the other edit summaries say- I think it just doesn't fit for the overall article. I do love the article on Soapy Smith, pretty interesting stuff. You're doing good work! T e ke 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, it's just that Wikipedia knowledge is deeper than you think. The entire Klondike goldrush merits just ONE sentence in the subarticle History of Alaska and one photo (which is a great one, BTW). Skagway doesn't merit mention. But if you keep looking at histories of those particular topics in Wiki, you'll eventually find the perfect natural place to put your link(s). Don't give up. I see somebody (you?) has already added the link to Skagway, Alaska. It's not in Klondike Gold Rush, but then the names of few people are.Sbharris 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris: I do not know how much you know about Alaskan history, but the Klondike gold rush had an enormous impact on Alaska. I do not understand you saying Skagway has no merit for mention in Alaska history. It was the main port for the gold rush, and plays a key role in the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, operated by the National Park Service. Soapy 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What little I know about that area of history, I would agree. Maybe the info could be added to the Gold Rush article. - Skysmith 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Even in upper Alaska (which I've been to, though never the panhandle where the Klondike staging was) has many references to the gold rush years. You can't visit upper Alaska without finding out the difference between chechako and sourdough. This history should be expanded in History of Alaska, since most of the staging to the Klondike was through Alaska, and (as we said) had a huge influence on its history and culture. Jack London. Robert Service. Need I say more?Sbharris 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not put it in the "Gold Rush" history (I assume you mean Klondike gold rush) because it is Alaskan history, not Canadian.Soapy 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a new chapter like "Klondike Gold Rush in Alaska" in that article if you want to specify the exact consequences in Alaska. - Skysmith 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody put into Klondike for you. But that history is both Alaskan and Canadian for reasons noted above, and this is already discussed in the article. Perhaps the Alaskan part of the Klondike article could use some fleshing out as well. Go for it.Sbharris 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened to see that you say that you are tired of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's best not to get involved in articles that are personal to you for this very reason. Had it not been for this I wouldn't have learned about Soapy Smith, which is what the project is about. Consider staying and working on other articles; there is much to be done here. T e ke 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Skysmith and Sbharris: One of you two can do the write up on Alaska's role on the Klondike article. If no one deletes to it, or complains that it does not belong there, then I will maybe add to it.

I know next to nothing about that era, so I could not do it justice. However, I don't think there would be any good reason to delete any relevant information. - Skysmith 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Edward Capehart O'Kelley was speedy-deleted by User:Kungfuadam. If you have not yet talked to him/her, I recommend leaving a polite note on the admin's requesting clarification. Looking at the deleted content, I understand why the tag was added but looking at the page history, this does seem to have been carried out a bit precipitously. We've been fighting a fairly persistent vandal lately and your stub may have just gotten caught in the crossfire.

If talking to the deleting admin doesn't answer your questions, you have the option to petition for a review of the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rossami (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copy of what I wrote there)

You are correct that it shouldn't have been speedy deleted, as it had the {{hangon}} template, and has 2 existing article references.
The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion explicitly states: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."
You are incorrect as to the place to complain. That should have been Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Unfortunately these days, just re-posting the same article again is sometimes considered a form of vandalism, so complain first, and during the review the old article will be undeleted so everybody can see it.

--William Allen Simpson 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to follow up, don't give up quite yet....

--William Allen Simpson 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, but the article is gone. I checked where you said it was, for review, but it is not there. I also have not received any response from "Kungfuadam" or the other areas I posted the complaint. Looking at his talk page, I can see he has a lot of complaints against him. Something should be done about this guy. I was asked to come to Wikipedia a while ago, but always delayed, because I heard about the problems. Now I wish I would have stayed away. Soapy 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen, unfortunately. You could recommend the article for undeletion in the the Deletion review. Or write a longer version and repost it - Skysmith 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article for you and moved it to your userspace. You can find it at User:Jeff Soapy Smith/Edward Capehart O'Kelley. This is to allow you to expand the article, WP:CITE more sources etc. Once you feel the article is ready it can be moved (note: moved using the move tab, not copied) back to the main article space. If the article does not demonstrate that the subject is notable it could get deleted again, so make sure it's ready. Feel free to ask me any questions if you need further help. Cheers, Petros471 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you people!! Soapy 15:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Please use the {{helpme}} only on your talk page. It is not for articles or their talk pages.

Also, I am not able to do anything to move the talk page as you have asked, and you will need admin assistance. I will leave the helpme there for now so that an admin can take care of it. --No1lakersfan 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been resolved. --No1lakersfan 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

memeber jasbro is causing a lot of havoc on my Soapy Smith discussion page. Even though numerous people have explained to him the situation he will not let up, nor will he let anyone remove improper tags/banners on the main article.Soapy 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm afraid User:Jaysbro is right to raise this issue. Talk pages are there for discussion of the page content, including whether it conforms to the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia. Also, in general, the templates at the top of the page should not be removed while the page content is still disputed.

I would say that citing sources - the specific documents which support your claims (especially web versions if possible as they're easier for people to check) - would probably fix the issues discussed. You shouldn't cite sources which are in your personal possession: these cannot be checked and are therefore not verifiable.

Wikipedia has a few ways to help resolve disputes - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --h2g2bob 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaysbro here. I object to the accusation that I "won't let anyone remove improper tags/banners on the main article." I specifically said that anyone can delete from or add to the article (since Wikipedia is freely editable), but that doing something unilaterally (without a consensus of all interested parties) is likely to create a controversy (and Wikipedia has procedures for dealing with a controversy). On re-reading my post I see how it came out as a threat, how Jeff could have inferred "Do this or I'll bring the wrath of wikipedia on you" and for that I apologize, but I wasn't trying to threaten, just tell you how Wikipedia operates. Jaysbro 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shell game

If you have read this article, the reason for the {totallydisputed} tag should be obvious to you. Nonetheless, I left some examples on the talk page in case you are interested in trying to improve the biased tone and questionable factual accuracy of the article. My guess is that it will require some bonifide sources and a near complete rewrite fo the text. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This issue has been completely resolved. the User: Savidan did not know that the shell game was a swindle and never played on the street honestly. Soapy 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

soapy smith .. fort worth

curious is you have any sort of reference for the soapy smith info you placed on the History of Fort Worth, Texas page.. please get back to me - Thanks!! --drumguy8800 C T 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

letters from family and gang members. They will be published in the biography I am publishing on Soapy, which is why I did not use them as reference. Soapy 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle, Washington

This message is regarding your Talk:Seattle, Washington vote to oppose a move. I made a comment on it. Georgia guy 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baked alaska

i saw you removed 'baked alaska' from the Alaska section. the pair do share a connection apart from the name. the baked alaska article mentions "This title transformed into "Baked Alaska" in 1876 when Delmonico's Restaurant in New York City named it in honour of the newly acquired territory of Alaska." So i feel it should be included. DARRe N^TALK 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell game edit corrections

Thanks for your fixes after my changes to Shell game - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shell_game&diff=next&oldid=99234115

I missed that.

Interestingly, the verb was okay in British English (and by extension Aussie English), but not okay in US English. See: [1]

e.g. If I replaced the word "gang", by "they" -> "surround" would be the choice.

I'll let it stand.

Thanks again.

202.63.40.179 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, what you apparently meant to do was change the original sentence to read, "the gang surround him/her," but you wrote, "the player/victim the gang surround him/her," which does not make sense. Soapy 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yeah, agreed. That's why I thanked you. As someone who is a little pedantic about spelling/grammar I appreciated you fixing the error I hadn't noticed at the time. But when looking at the change of "surround" to "surrounds", I at first didn't understand why you changed that. Looking at web sites I realised the different British/U.S. usage. Possibly in British English either "surround" or "surrounds" is okay, depending on whether the gang is regarded as a unit ("It surrounds") or individuals acting together ("They surround"). In U.S. English it looks like "surrounds" is the only option. Regards, 202.63.40.179 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People known by pseudonyms

William Moore

Thanks for your advice on the article William Moore (steamship captain). I'd appreciate any further information you have, particularly on the Alaska and Skagway related portion of the article, which I haven't quite started yet. On a completely different topic, re: Soapy Smith, I have a source here The Far Land by Eva MacLean, that states that the last surviving member of Soapy Smith's gang, George Montgomery, ended up in Hazelton, British Columbia. Because that book is more a pioneer reminiscence than anything, I've been leery of citing that information. Any ideas on its truthfulness?CindyBo 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CindyBo, The best book in my opinion is, The White Pass: Gateway to the Klondike, by Roy Minter, 1987 (ISBN: 0-912006-26-9). In regards to Soapy Smith and George Montgomery, I do not have any information on him and his name does not appear anywhere in my records. This does not mean he did not belong, in some fashion, to the Soap Gang but there is no information on him doing so. Is there some kind of footnote in the book you mentioned that shows some sort of evidence that George was a member? or are we just to take Eva MacLean's word. Eva's statement about George being the last surviving member of the gang is absurd. I have been researching Soapy and his gang for well over twenty years and have no where near a complete list of the gang. It was a very secretive organization. In fact, after Soapy was shot dead, the vigilante's tried in vain to rid the town of the gang. They were successful of destroying their hold on the town but were not successful in finding all of them. I have copies of newspapers that show ads in which members of the gang continued to operate businesses in the town well after the death of their boss. It is just not possible for someone to know when the last one died. Did you see my website on Soapy Smith yet? Click →[2] Soapy 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Hi CindyBo- I did a little checking up on Eva MacLean and her book and did not realize before that she was a woman of the gold rush era...in Canada. I assumed she was a living historian. The members of Soapy Smith's gang were all Americans that came from western parts of the United States, mostly Colorado and Washington. My records do not indicate any of them went to Canada, even during the gold rush. Upon leaving Alaska, most went back home to the states. I have been successful in following a few back to the states well into the 1920s. Some even continued to keep in touch with the widow as they were loyal, even years after Soapy had passed. Soapy 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that the George Montgomery statement was suspect, Eva MacLean relied on stories told by the people themselves and what she saw in Hazelton from 1911 to 1913, so whether George really was a member or was just telling her a tall tale, can't be proven from her book, (no footnotes). Her book is more factual when it comes to the robbery at Hazelton, as she witnessed it and her husband was Dan MacLean. Regardless, as to George retiring in Hazelton and being a member of the gang, I'll poke around some more in our local history and let you know if I find any more references to him.CindyBo 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you have an absolutely wonderful website there. Is that the one someone called spam? What nonsense! Even here, in British Columbia, Soapy Smith is also very well known, the name if not the facts. When you publish your book, I hope we'll see it in our book stores here too.CindyBo 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on two counts; one, for continuing to keep an eye out for "Soapy" in British Columbia, and two, for the nice comments regarding my website. My publisher is located in Alaska so British Columbia has a good chance of seeing it. It is due out 2008. Soapy 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warnging

I have a question for you...to what was the vandalism warning that you placed on may talk page (with no explaination) for? As I am a vandalism fighter myself, this warning concerns me very much. I don't see from your contributions where you have reverted any of my edits, and any reverts that I have made have been good faith reverts of suspected vandalism or page banking, so I am VERY concerned about this issue!!! MsDivagin 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact message you left me...without explanation, on an unsigned edit. It all started when you deleted some legitimate categories from the article Soapy Smith. I replaced what you had deleted, and you came back and undid my correction and tagged me as a vandal. I see what you did as the real vandalism and tagged you thusly. Please be more careful when editing articles in the future, as they can easily be construed as destructive. Thank you. Soapy 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skagway

You changed the classification of Skagway into borough only in the lead paragraph. You should probably also change the rest of the article to be consistent. Note that being a borough, it is no longer part of an Alaska Census Area. --Polaron | Talk 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the information while working on another project outside of Wiki. Feel free to change the rest of the article but note that much of the information about the "city" is a part of history. Be observant to what you change. Thank you.

I did some time ago but was reverted. Since the borough and city are coextensive, it's not that complicated to change it. --Polaron | Talk 02:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skagway is not a national historical park. Why is it being put into the category with all those national historical parks? Twice yet. Backspace (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire city is a part of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park.Jeff Smith (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where you got that information. According to our own Wikipedia article and the National Park Service's website, the park has only a total of 13,191 acres, not even five percent of the area of Municipality of Skagway Borough's 452.442 square miles. Backspace (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, someone seems to have goofed there! No way the Skagway Borough encompasses 452.4 square miles! The town itself is only about 12 blocks long and half as wide. The KGNHP covers area in Washington, and Alaska. Skagway is a major unit of the KGNHP and therefore the category needs to remain. I have copied this section and pasted it in the Skagway, Alaska article discussion page where it belongs. Please make comments there. Thank you.Jeff Smith (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we are talking about the Borough now, and not the urban town. Just as in Juneau or Sitka or even Anchorage, these borough/cities are really counties in every sense, with huge empty areas without a soul to be seen for miles (even more so than down in the Lower 48). The dinky little urban area of Skagway may be considered by many or most to be the "city" of Skagway, but officially the "City and Borough" are considered to be unified. The official website of Skagway says that the Borough has 455 square miles (a little past the halfway point on the first page), very close to our Census Bureau figures. Backspace (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Robert Ford/Jesse James

I have been involved in a dispute with an editor on the Jesse James article, which is why I happened to see your post here. While I don't see much of what the editor has done regarding the James article as productive, I did feel I needed to comment on your post and assessment of the Seattle Times article which he was using as a source. There's a wide difference between citing a newspaper interview with an author of a fictionalized account of an historical event and citing content contained in the fictionalized book itself. The article is very clear about its scope - it discusses Jesse James and Robert Ford in fact, how the story became a book, how the book became a film, and also discusses what was used in the book/film. The article isn't about the fictionalized book nearly so much as it is about how the historical facts became a film and how the historical facts became skewed with folk legend. As much as I hate to say so, I believe that if the content from the article is used judiciously - content about the facts and not from the book/film - it is a valid source, depending on how it is used. One of my main issues with the other editor, however, happens to be his using a film review for the Pitt/Affleck film for facts that aren't correctly reported in the film review. Having said all of that, I'm not convinced the editor is clear about the difference and his changes need to be clearly checked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The newspaper article mentions several "facts" but contains no sources other than Ron Hansen's fictional book. I have noticed several editors over the last year have added information from Hansen's book as if it were a biography. As a historian I have to say that the Seattle Times article is not even close to being considered a valid source.

Actually, just to be clear, the article does make reference to comments from the director of two museums, one of which is the Jesse James house. Valid facts come from many places and newspaper articles have not, to my knowledge, been ruled out as valid sources, especially as I noted, when they are used judiciously. My purpose in approaching you was to mention that I'm not convinced the other editor is clear on what comes from fictionalized history and what does not, especially considering that he has moved from the James article to others. Sorry to have bothered you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So that you perfectly understand what a source is, yes, newspapers, although not always reliable are often considered a valid reference source. if one is writing about fiction then the content of that source is not imperative. However, the Robert Ford (as well as the Jesse James) article is strictly non-fiction and historical sources must be reliable and crystal clear as to the contents and where they came from. The fact that the article "makes reference" to the directors of two museums does not mean the "rumor" came from them. That is clearly an assumption. The newspaper article in question is unclear on what content comes from fictionalized novels or history. If this "rumor" is true then it will be published in reliable documented sources such as a James biography. The fact that the article also makes reference to information by novelist Ron Hansen makes the "facts and rumors" even more academically "dangerous" to use in a non-fiction biographical article. Ron Hansen has never proclaimed that his book is a non-fictional account and neither should anyone else. I am not anti-Ron Hansen, but rather a pro-historical researcher. It is much better to leave out text that is not properly documented than to add untrue information. Jeff Smith (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Fatal Duel.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fatal Duel.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FinalRapture - † ☪ 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listed myself as the author of the photo from the get-go. What's the problem? Jeff Smith (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff! Per Wikipedia policy all images are required to have a Copyright Tag. Please choose a acceptable copyright for your image, and you can remove the deletion tag. If you cannot choose a free license leave the image alone and it will be deleted. Thank you. FinalRapture - † ☪ 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian America

Hi,

I’d like to let you know that when Russia had what is now Alaska, “Alaska”, or “Alyaska” or “Alyaksa”, was a term that referred to what is now known as Alaska Peninsula. The Russians had in that area only one “odinochka”, that is, one one-man-post. I.e. just one Russian in what some people erroneusly call “Russian Alaska”. The rest of Russian America had up to 1000 Russian citizens working for the Russian American Company. Thus the term “Russian Alaska” is anachronistic, to say the least. If you take a look at Richard Pierce’s series Alaska History, the titles of the books he published (more than 50 volumes), consistenly have the words Russian America in their titles.

I hope that this will convince you that “Russian America” is the correct term, and “Russian Alaska” is a misnomer. Anyway, if you disagree, could you be so kind as to explain to me what you think is the difference between the two expressions, and what it is exactly that you think they refer to, respectively.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out to you that I’m a specialist in the field of Russian America, a published author in Russian and U.S. historical journals. Apanuggpak (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

Just to let you know that articles must be nominated at WP:GAN and assessed by an uninvolved editor against the WP:GACR before they are can be given GA status. This is in regards to this edit from last year. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited Frank H. Reid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linn County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

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 Robert Ford (outlaw).

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 ⚡ 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libertarian Republican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voluntarism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libertarian Republican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voluntarism. 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) 12:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Petersen article

Having trouble with vandalism on the Austin Petersen article. Jeff Smith (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a {{subst:uw-ew}} on their talk page. You should try to talk with them first maybe. I'm not an admin, though, so I'll leave the template up I think. At first glance, it looks like the other user disagrees on whether the NAP is a Libertarian, or Ancap principle alone. In my opinion, the article should follow what the references say. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BB. Yes, the two sources/references I have, give all the proof needed, including the NAP wording in the Libertarian Party platform. Jeff Smith (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practically the entire content of that article is based on primary sources and original synthesis. "One of Petersen's controversial stands is his public opposition to some of the Libertarian positions, such the the NAP..." - says who? The one source for that sentence is himself, the other does not mention him. Neither mentions Petersen's position is controversial; in fact it seems to be largely ignored. That's no way to write a BLP. Personally I'd suggest redirecting it to the election article if no better references can be found. Huon (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am writing to ask you to explain your edits in this article and source them, as far as possible. You are aware of the vulnerability of biographies of living persons, and particularly if they are engaged in politics. Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caballero1967, both of my references show that 1) Petersen wishes to remove the NAP and 2) the NAP is indeed one of two foundation principles of libertarianism. I will find an article that show shows that it is "controversial." I am not the hostile editor. Jeff Smith (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Petersen is controversial in his opposition to some of the Libertarian key positions, such as his denial of the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8]"

Nomination of Austin Petersen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Austin Petersen 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/Austin Petersen 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician)

As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. Acidskater (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AcidskaterAcidskater]], you are to immediately cease deleting sourced material just because you have a personal/political interest!Bunco man (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am to follow Wikipedia guidelines...something I suggest you start doing as well. Even though I support Petersen I also follow this thing called a "Neutral Point of View" when editing. The sources provided do not support your claims (something multiple users have also told you) and I have already reported you to the admin board for violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines, so it is up to the admins at this point. Acidskater (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IF you were following the "Neutral Point of View" when editing, you wouldn't be so desperate in trying to hide the facts about Austin Petersen and his opposition of the Libertarian principle, the Non-aggression principle. Bunco man (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Acidskater (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Draft:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. slakr^\ talk / 22:07, 27 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created the Libertarian Principles section of the article. The information is the same fully sourced information used on all of the deleted Austin Petersen articles. It was user Acidskater who came in and removed everything I wrote and added his own. I asked him to stop deleting sourced material and he refused to stop, but I'm seen as the warring editor. Acidskater has a personal and political interest in this issue and seeks to hide facts that are well-known in the Libertarian community. Bunco man (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are describing isn't an exception to the rules on edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics, BLP

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.

--slakr^\ talk / 22:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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.

--slakr^\ talk / 22:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Austin Petersen page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bunco man. 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]

Sanctions

Do you understand that your language and your actions, especially in light of your earlier block could lead you to being banned from Libertarian related articles? Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How dare me question what right-wingers write about libertarianism! Lol. Ironic that I started with the libertarian movement in 1975, and the party in 1976. Though libertarianism has not actually changed (principled non-aggression based philosophy), the political right has fully infiltrated the movement and have "redefined" what it means, so that they could add their aggression based ideology to it. I was with the movement for 40 years but left it in 2014 because the Libertarian Party had become fully absorbed by the Republican Party. Now the political right uses threats ("you'll be banned") if I dare tell the truth. Bunco man (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Um, no, the political right isn't telling you you might be banned, I am. And I can. I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am talking about your behavior. And I'm trying to advise you on what to do to avoid being banned. I don't want to ban or block you but you need to reign yourself back. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - "your behavior." Have I attacked anyone? Used foul language? Called anyone names? No. I simply edit in true and sourced information that people on the political right disagree with. As I stated previously, I had been with the libertarian movement and party for 40 years. The foundation principles in the Statement of Principles has not changed, thus the majority of disagreement with my edits and comments. Bunco man (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Austin Petersen. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Sorry about using a template, but you have reverted three times and need to be aware of WP:3RR. I see that you are discussing this at the talk page; that is the right thing to do. While the discussion is ongoing, you should not be repeatedly inserting your version into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

- The revert was bringing back the ORIGINAL verbiage that had sources. Why does the person with the incorrect information (an opinion) get to remove sourced correct information? He gets to remove the facts and the truth to protect a politician that redefines and denies the Libertarian Party platform. If you don't know Libertarianism then let me compare it with something as an example. Imagine me going to the Republican Party page and deciding (on my own) that they are really the Democratic Party (or vice versa). You wrote, "work towards a version that represents consensus among editors." It's not that simple. This is a non-libertarian trying to remove a solid libertarian platform The NAP is one of the three foundation principles listed in the platform and this guy decided (on his own) that it is not, even though all the facts and sources show that it is, but HE gets to decide? Bunco man (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion going on at Talk:Austin Petersen, and there is no reason to be trying to get a consensus in multiple locations (it goes against FORUMSHOPPING rules). Please continue making your case at the talk page. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, it was brought to my talk page. Bunco man (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts again as these expire after 12 months

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 that 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 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 that 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

You have received (at least twice) the standard notification about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. You need to read and understand it, particularly the parts that read:

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced."

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

At Austin Petersen, you've reverted against consensus (3 users have objected, only you support), to restore contentious material, cited only to unreliable sources (opinion blogs and other such websites are not "reliable sources" for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice). Please don't restore this content.

This has been discussed with you repeatedly. (Most recently by MelanieN and Primefac, in connection with the same page). I don't wish to seek enforcement action against you, but I will if you put this challenged content back in. Neutrality^talk 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm MelanieN. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Austin Petersen that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In this edit [3] you leveled various accusations against two editors you disagree with. Discuss the content, not the other editors. . MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I am being bullied into allowing a few to deny the truth about Austin Petersen. I can only guess that this has ties to the political right, trying to change history and the facts. Bunco man (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. That's two, so consider this a second, higher-level warning. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Are you KIDDING me! How DARE me answer a question honestly! Bunco man (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this concerns not you directly, but Auggyp, who you have had several edit wars with. Also keep in mind WP:1RR for political articles, though at least in the latest case (concerning Petersen's religion), I'd be inclined to call WP:IAR and let your edit war slide (at least for you) because you were re-adding material that was added by clear consensus following a discussion, which is exactly what you're supposed to do instead of edit warring. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was settled a while back on the talk page of the article. Auggyp is Austin Petersen and he is trying to cover up his interviews and admissions/debates online, in which he insisted he was an atheist. Bunco man (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the COI page linked above with links to the appropriate proof. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented here because the issue is here. The link is on this article as well. Bunco man (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators reviewing the COI and taking appropriate action will see that page. They probably won't come here. I only notified you as a courtesy. Smartyllama (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on Austin Petersen

If you think the citation you reverted on the Austin Petersen article is problematic, remove it. Don't revert the bot's edits which were just properly formatting an existing ref. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all the bot is doing is fixing the format of the citation. It's not adding it - it was already there, just formatted wrong. Please do not revert the bot again as all you are doing is breaking the citation, not removing it. If you want to remove it, remove the whole thing, including the citation name. Reverting the bot just breaks things without actually removing the citation you say is inappropriate. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bunco man. 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]

Austin Petersen

Where did the Daily Wire article indicate that Peterson's AP4Liberty Facebook account has been banned? The closest I can find is it mentioning a tweet from someone else which tagged Petersen's @AP4Liberty Twitter account, but clearly stated it was his Facebook account that had been banned. Perhaps you misunderstood it? Or I suppose it could have been corrected since you last saw it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that the Daily Wire removed the "AP4Liberty" Facebook info. It was there because that's where I got the name of his page, though I know the page well. However, Facebook does not ban on Twitter accounts. Petersen only has two Facebook pages, the one where the ban supposedly took place (AP4Liberty) and where Petersen continues to insist he was banned for 30 days, and his "Austin Wade" page which are not banned as he continues to post on both. Is it possible that Facebook postdates it's bans and it has not taken place yet? Did Facebook immediately remove the ban and Petersen is failing to mention that part? Or is Petersen pulling a fast one? Knowing Petersen since 2012 I will guess the latter. None the less, his Facebook pages have not been banned, unless you know of one that has been? Bunco man (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, we can only report what we see in sources, not wild speculation. Obviously Facebook can't ban him or anyone else from Twitter - presumably the tag of @AP4Liberty in the referenced tweet was intended to refer to Petersen himself, rather than his Twitter account. If you can find some reliable source saying Petersen's not banned or that he made the whole thing up, feel free to include it. And as far as I can tell, his personal account has not posted since Tuesday, before the ban supposedly happened. So it's possible that his personal account was banned while leaving his campaign account intact. Or this could be an elaborate hoax, but we can't really speculate about that ourselves, only say what is stated elsewhere. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - wild speculation? The fact remains that Petersen and the The Daily Wire still insist that Petersen's "FACEBOOK page was banned." We have a blog story from The Daily Wire, but no link (source, proof) that any of Petersen's FACEBOOK pages were banned as Petersen is still posting, and has been since the day of the supposed ban. If you know which page FACEBOOK banned, then please list it here and we can stop this. Thank you. Bunco man (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the source and the Wikipedia article indicate Petersen's personal account was banned, not his campaign account. Although the campaign account has posted since the alleged ban started (including to mention the ban), Petersen's personal account has not. We just go by what reliable sources say here, not by what we think might have happened. If you think The Daily Wire source isn't reliable, take it up on the talk page, but the solution in that case would be to remove all information on the ban, not add even more questionable information. Please take all future discussion on this to the Austin Petersen talk page so we can consolidate this in one place and other editors can see. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a "source" is just a story without provenance. The Wikipedia article is just repeating the unsourced story. The discussion IS on the Austin Petersen talk page. I responded here because YOU posted a new thread ... HERE!

Correction

Hi. I am just here to explain one of your edit summaries you wrote recently. AnomieBOT is a bot. They aren't controlled by someone behind the computer but rather they perform certain functions set by the owner. Their job is to fix references when they are missing. They help the community for quick fixes. Please see WP:BOT for more. Reverting a bot and expecting a response does not happen. Thank you, Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this is your fourth revert in 24 hours, I strongly suggest you undo it and get consensus for your changes on the talk page lest another editor report you at WP:3RN. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ponyo: Odd, I make corrections and those that made the mistake get to revert over and over, but get no warnings. I didn't realize that Wikipedia now needs a consensus in order to correct errors.Bunco man (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd. You've gone over 3 reverts against multiple editors and were warned for doing so. Your reverts have no exemption under the the relevant policy and you could very well find yourself blocked should any of the editors you are reverting report you at WP:3RN. I'm giving you the opportunity to avoid a block by undoing your last revert and getting consensus for your disputed edit on the talk page. You're welcome.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Obvious errors were made, I spent hour fixing them. Errors such as listing noted Republicans as Democrats or independents, and vice versa, no matter what the sources say listed say. The majority of editors decides what party candidates belong to. Hey, let's make Trump a Democrat. It's ok if a couple of editors want it to be "true." This is why Wikipedia is not a trusted source in schools. Bunco man (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your edits are correct and verifiable then there should be no problem getting consensus for them on the talk page and then they can be restored. Outside of blatant vandalism, BLP violations or sockpuppetry there are very few exemptions to the 3RR rule as each party involved believes they are right in either removing or restoring disputed content. You've been blocked previously for edit warring and have been warned warned multiple times; the policy should come as no surprise to you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans and Democrats have found their way of controlling the truth on Wikipedia. All they need do is always have a majority (consensus). Well, that's enough for me. I quit Wikipedia. Bunco man (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo:, keep in mind that the article that they have been edit warring on is under a WP:1RR. Prcc27 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting profile

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I wish to delete my profile. I'm done with this crap. Bunco man (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. An account cannot be deleted. If an account was deleted, all the edits made by the user could not be properly attributed. Just logging out and stopping to edit is OK.

2. For United States presidential election, 2020 I would suggest to make a copy of the page at User:Bunco man/United States presidential election, 2020 and modify it there. When a candidate is invalid, append a note next to their paragraph in bold, explaining why (with links) they do not belong here, rather than removing them. Then I would be able to check it as soon as I can and then I would be able to propose corrections to the original page if needed. --Gryllida (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(In your personal copy, you may use strike through, like this: "~~John Smith, Green and Republican[1]. Bla Bla.~~ No, [1] is not a reliable source, he is not a member of either party according to [3].") --Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions but the editors are not examining the reasons for the corrections, they simply revert. This problem is growing and after 12 years on Wikipedia it's gotten to the point that errors are ok, so long as there are a couple of editors that prefer the error. I started on Wikipedia to correct some of the history pages. The way it is now, if I can't edit then there is no reason to be here anymore.Bunco man (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you CANNOT edit war, no matter how sure you are that you are right and the other people are wrong. Please read WP:EW. If you have a disagreement, take it to the talk page. You are lucky that people have been explaining this to you and giving you the chance to stop it and to undo your edit warring comments. They have been really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt; they could have simply blocked you from editing. There's no need for you to quit Wikipedia; just learn to work within the established systems. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shootout on Juneau Wharf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shootout on Juneau Wharf 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/Shootout on Juneau Wharf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bunco man. 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]