The apostolica

Welcome

Hello, The apostolica, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Youreallycan 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

your edits at Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy‎

Hello, you were BOLD and added content, it was Reverted; and now the appropriate step is to Discuss on the talk page.

Note that Wikipedia is not a place to push your political agenda, and that we take content about living people very seriously. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The truth is political agenda? Huh? The apostolica (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the cited content, you can take them to the talk section. You don't just remove content - UNLESS it's not supported or the content is a personal attack. Nothing is unsupported and nothing is personal. You've already included that Rush called Sandra a "slut" but you're offended by something in the content I provided? LOL. The leftist agenda for the "poor coed" strawman presented needs a complete picture so that ALL the facts around the controversy aired. And if you or anyone else wants to fight against the whole truth, *we'll* give you a fight. You don't get to own the narrative on Wikipedia. Political agenda, indeed. The apostolica (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats not the way it works. In controversial content about a living person (much less the half dozen in your segment), remains OUT until there is a consensus on how to appropriately include it (if at all) -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

please do not edit war

Your recent editing history at Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And you're doing what that's different exactly? The apostolica (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of controversial and poorly sourced content about living people is not subject to 3RR WP:3RRNO. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Poorly sourced? There's 4 sources there. All of which got national attention. Please, find me a better source for this information. Wait, do you work for SKD Knickerbocker? The apostolica (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

just because you had a link on the end of your content doesnt mean that it is appropriately sourced. see the wikipedia definition of reliable sources and when we can (rarely) and cannot (most of the time, particularly regarding living people) use blogs and opinion pieces. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It was 4 links to well-known sites, including the WSJ. Your agenda is showing again. The apostolica (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"well known" does not mean "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." the link to the WSJ was to their opinion pages where they reposted a blog. even reliable sources have opinion pages, which are are of limited use.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so we're only supposed to take the leftist narrative because the leftist publications cited are so "useful"? Having NYT by one's name doesn't make them trustworthy. What's a citation to MMFA doing here? You're going to try to argue against my sources, but defend MMFA as a source? LMAO! Agenda much? You're bias is showing, red something or other. Aptly named. The apostolica (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

where have I defended MMFA? please do not put words in my mouth. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, apostolica;

No doubt that MMfA and ThinkProgress, etc are unreliable, and several pages have had the problem you allude to, namely, a hyper-partisan editor spamming their press releases over Wikipedia. The solution, though, is not to put similar anti-Fluke allegations up. There is a concerted effort to make this article LESS partisan by removal of suspect facts and getting it to NPOV, and I would encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER, a little background; part of the reason there is NO discussion of the First Amendment issues, is that over a long period of contentious editing, a general consensus evolved that the Fluke flap really didn't add much, and that the RL-SF controversy (as defined for this article) really JUST involved the inappropriate use of words. I admit that several editors have not STUCK to that consensus, but if you want background, there is quite a lot on the Talk pages (several are Archived; this may have to be revisited). Welcome to Wikipedia.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Leo Frank, you may be blocked from editing. Note that now 2 editors have reverted you you need to get consensus on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

STOP

You appear to be attracted to wikidrama. I caution against this. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2016

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Glossary of Nazi Germany.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Please seek consensus for the change on the article's Talk page instead. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate language

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Glossary of Nazi Germany. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

The racist language on Talk pages and edit summaries is unacceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Glossary of Nazi Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)