User talk:Robert Laity

July 2009

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Barack Obama for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Please refer to WP:SOAP for more information DKqwerty (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that article, in addition to being a textbook violation of wp:npov is chock full of unsourced and poorly-sourced information. I would note, however, that your edits would receive more support from other editors if the information was phrased in terms of what eligibility theorists "claim," rather than statements of fact or conclusions of law. As you may have noted, the article is being camped on by a small number of left-wing folks who dominate its content and obstruct wp:npov. Even phrasing the positions you included as "claims" is going to be difficult in that environment, but it would be necessary to achieve wp:npov in any event. I hope you stick around to contribute and balance things out. John2510 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may note in the history log for this talk page that Dave Dial (talk) deleted my comments above. Of course, since this isn't an article or even an article talk page, my comments were perfectly appropriate (feel free to delete them if YOU think otherwise). It's bad enough that left-wing extremists try to supress and spin in the articles... now they try to prevent people who disagree with their POV from communicating with each other and making constructive comments re editing. Amazing... simply amazing. John2510 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Laity v New York

You have added:

Currently, Robert C. Laity v New York is at the U.S. Supreme Court at Docket # 13-875 seeking Obama's removal from Office on the grounds that he has usurped the Presidency by Fraud during time of war.-Robert C. Laity,Petitioner March 15,2014.

to an article.

The meaning of -Robert C. Laity,Petitioner March 15,2014 isn't clear. Are you attempting to sign this? (If so, don't. Not in an article.)
If this material is of significant interest, it will be reported on in the mass media. It should then come with a secondary source. No mass media report on an attempt to remove a president would imply insignificant interest. (As it is, all I notice in Google are a tiny number of mentions in fringe websites.) What's of insignificant interest should be omitted.
Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or blog. What's newest doesn't go at the top.
Your username "Robert Laity" is remarkably close to "Robert C. Laity". If you are him, you should say so. If you aren't him, you should not use this username.

-- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]