User talk:Sasha best

Sasha best (talk · contribs · block log)

Welcome!

Hello, Sasha best, 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:Where to ask a question, 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! Metal Thunder 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to George W. Bush

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 07:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm sorry my last explanation wasn't clear. I'm just talking about edits such as this, this, and this. I realize that you're probably sympathetic to George W. Bush and you're just trying to make his reputation better, but this is probably not the best way to go at it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not American; therefore, I don't really have that big of an opinion on him. However, before you delete sections from such a controversial person's article, make sure that you talk about it on his talk page. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks, lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Not to get in your face, but I saw you recently removed a fair chunk of content from this article. In most cases, you won't get people bothering you about this, but this particular article is... well, active would be putting it gently. ;) If you would be so kind as to use talk pages (such as Talk:George W. Bush) or edit summaries to explain your edits, I imagine people would be much less skeptical. Let me know if you have any questions about that (or use a {{helpme}} tag, on your talk page, if I'm not around). Regards, Luna Santin 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to George W. Bush.

~~Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to George W. Bush. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.~~ · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above warning and the edit that prompted it: I believe if you would simply use edit summaries when removing content, people would be much less likely to revert your edits. It was much appreciated that you left a note on the talk page explaining your edit, but an edit summary could prevent this type of edit/revert/warn/explain/re-edit situation. Just a thought. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the message on my talk page to the bottom. Thanks for liking my joke. I'll read the explanation a later, when I have more time. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's fine then. Sorry for the trouble. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush (again)

Hi, the George W. Bush article should primarily be a biography of the person and the Washington Times reference was more about the Iraq War.--Addhoc 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to George W Bush (Again Again)

You recently made two edits to remove text or question text in George W Bush's article. The text in question was sourced and properly followed Wikipedia citiation guidelines. Deleting portions of cited text can be considered vandalism. Please do not Double Standard Edit, meaning you requested a citation tag behind a number that is negative to your viewpoint, but did not do so for the information pro your viewpoint. Additionally, the second removal was simply reverted as the 88 page source did indeed support the sentence. Poverty has increased, as clearly stated by the source. RTRimmel (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Transient polling data is not biographically-significant, so I have reverted your edit. It is better suited at Presidency of Barack Obama; however, I would suggest that having a secondary source like a newspaper or news website that writes about the polling data, rather than simply referring to the numbers, will be more useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even then the edit would not be accepted. We use Gallup for historical comparisons and many of those edits are already in the correct articles. Even if we used averages, we don't use RCP for comparisons, especially because there is no forumula available as to reasons why which polls are included and excluded. Dave Dial (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been forced to delete your poll data again because you have utterly failed to respect the obvious consensus for its inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at Talk:Barack Obama. Do not add the text back until there is a consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RCP

Sure. We use Gallup for polls to compare historically because Gallup is the poll used on all the Presidents from FDR on. Also, if we were going to use a poll aggregate outlet, I would be against using RCP because they do not publish their criteria for poll inclusion/exclusion and have no grading system. If there were to be an inclusion, it would be with Nate Silver of 538.com, who publishes all his data and formulas. But there is no historical comparison for that anyway, so trying to add that to a section about Presidential comparisons would also be rejected. Gallup is used there. And it's already there. Dave Dial (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallup poll hasn't fluctuated much since the last update had it at 49%. There was a Gallup poll released a week or so ago showing the number at 47%. So that's not enough of a difference to update the Barack Obama article. In the other articles that monitor such fluctuations, the numbers are already updated. So no need to put anything in Obama's bio unless there is another big change. Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Barack Obama, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. All the content you removed was properly cited. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama again

If you want to discuss the article, do it on the article talk page. Not my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2010 (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]