Hello and welcome. I left you a message in response to your POV concern on Che Guevara. I hope you will work with myself and other editors on the article, in order to see that your concerns are addressed (if they can be).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion (which you can heed or discard). It seems that you are passionate with relation the content in the article (which is great) ... but I fear that you choice of wording may be strong and pov to the point of being easily "revertible" by others. I would hate to see your possibly constructive edits be deemed illegitimate because of the way they are presented. Maybe next time, stick closer to the wording of the sources, shoot for neutral wording, and do your best to reign in your "zeal." Let the information speak for itself ... there is no need to give the appearance of editorializing.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the La Cabaña page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone to quit vandalising, is not an attack in my book. Sf46 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't specifically say "queer" another user did. I did say "ditto" to what he said, meaning that I didn't think the vandalism was cool. While I do understand that the word "queer" when used in the wrong context can carry a homophobic connatation, I don't think that the othr user or myself were aiming for that particular meaning of the word. If you are so thin skinned that you think every use of the word carries such an offensive meaning, then you are the one with the problem.

As you can tell from comparing your userboxes to mine, you and I are almost complete opposites on nearly every issue. I do see one or two boxes that I'm going to take from you though. Sf46 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are clearly not vandalism. Removing unrelated chatter has been an established practice. Please take care to read edit summaries and if you feel the need to revert, treat good-faith edits accordingly. Also, you are clearly using templates wrong. The warning templates should generally be started off at 1 or 2. This is a clear and established practice except in extreme cases. Also, it is generally encouraged not to template regular or long time users. If you feel a warning is necessary, a personal warning regarding the situation is much more appropriate than a rubber-stamp template. Also, using escalated warning templates that threaten blocks is innapropriate since a block will not occur except in extreme cases such as vandalism only accounts, before at least the third incident.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't added any "personal analysis" to the article on Iraq, nor have I committed any vandalism. The article is written in poor English and I am correcting that. It also contained some redundancy and POV issues, which I have corrected. I have committed no "vandalism" or "experimentation," and my edits should be allowed to stand. --Antodav2007 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you call my edit to College World Series as vandalism? I removed two sections detailing highlights of the 2007 and 2008 CWS. Each year's CWS has its own page, so I fail to see why special sections were necessary in the main article of the CWS itself. The presence of those sections is an examples of WP:Recentism. And I explained why I was doing so in my comment edit. I am not a vandal, and do not appreciate being called as such. I am going to re-remvoe those sections, further explaining on a talk page if you prefer.--67.101.103.239 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very strong policy against including questionable and poorly sourced allegations against public figures in its articles. I strongly suggest to this extent that you familiarise yourself - and thoroughly - with the detailed policy on the subject. It is highly inappropriate to attempt to use Wikipedia, as you have done here, to make original claims about a public figure: in this case, accusing a Republican governor of being a socialist. I would also remind you of the new enforcement policy for BLP articles, which now states that someone who persists in adding such material can be banned, either from the article or if needed, from the project, by any administrator. Rebecca (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter for dispute. Articles on living people must not contain claims about that person that are controversial, poorly sourced and non-neutral. You have been pointed in the direction of the policy should you wish to read more about it. More specifically, in regard to this case, there is no neutral way in which you can originate a claim on Wikipedia that a Republican governor is a socialist. The only way in which it might be acceptable is if a prominent public figure makes the allegation and it could be sourced to them. I'll reinforce what I said before: re-adding this material will see you very promptly blocked. Rebecca (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this you editing while logged out? Kelly ^hi! 07:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenerd, can you please weigh in on this article again. It seems that the powers that be continue to ignore the articles comparing her policies to Chavez. 66.230.102.243 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson[reply]

Vandalism is you are engaged in what. At you one belief, at me others. I have resulted the authoritative sources confirming the facts informed by me. If you have facts about humanism or economic talents of Guevara and authoritative sources - result them, and in vandalism be not engaged. Sfrandzi (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism. You also do not have right to reject data anti-Castro authors as at me - to reject data pro-Castro authors Sfrandzi (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I consider, that discrepancy of my information to your belief does not give you the right me to offend. Secondly, not all were lucky enough to be born in the English-speaking country. The some has not carried: they were born there where fighters for freedom like Lenin, Che and Fidel have derthrown oppressors and expluatators and have constructed a happy and fair society. And consequently they, maybe, know English is worse, but know the price to revolutionaries such is better.Sfrandzi (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's testimony of eyewitnesses and the facts of authoritative sources. If you are dissatisfied with them - you and explain on page of discussion, than you are particularly dissatisfied Sfrandzi (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenard's edits are not vandalism. Sfrandzi's edits are not vandalism. This is a content dispute. Please discuss it on the article talk page. Please don't revert any more. I think you are both breaking the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Coppertwig (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also do you have any suggestions on how can i make it better?--Fang 23 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reverted your edits because they were synthesis. "xkcd.com says x" is referenceable; adding "this is not true because of x, y, and z" without reference is synthesis. The fact that you added it in "the middle of the night" or that the article was "a joke" doesn't change it. Tlesher (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image (Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg) you uploaded needs to be either deleted or renamed ASAP. It's not Abu Ghraib. It's an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq.

It could still make a suitable icon for the User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right_To_Resist page.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. Neither of those would be considered reliable sources.

You could check with the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you like, but I suspect TheSmokingGun is the only one they might approve, and that's not a sure thing either. Then there's still the question of rights.

Since it was the military that found that camp, they might have the original pictures. If so, then those would be public domain.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping fight vandalism. Unfortunately three of your recent reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism have been declined because they did not meet AIV criteria #2 and #3. Specifically the IPs either had not been sufficiently warned (using an escalating level of warnings from WP:UTM that reaches the "final warning" stage), or the IP stopped vandalizing after receiving a "final warning." Please let me know if you have any questions or issues, and thanks again for your help to contain vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts are welcome. Talk Page   Redthoreau (talk) RT 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have included previously discussed content and await your opinion. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:Wintrlnd, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was this all about? -Dempkovitch (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank categories without explanation. --Onorem♠Dil 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the link supposed to prove? If you have a problem with a specific category, try discussing it. Was he not an actor? Was he not a comedian? Was he not etc.... Complete blanking is inappropriate...and so is your laughable warning template on my talk page.. --Onorem♠Dil 23:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Where exactly is the personal attack? --Onorem♠Dil 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): no objections raised on ANI Request handled by: WODUP 08:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is user:Ncmvocalist even an admin? And if he is why didn't he sign? (Lenerd (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

After examining only the most recent page of your contributions list as a consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National-Anarchism, I have determined that you have engaged in a pattern of unconstructive and disruptive edits. These include, in no particular order: Repeatedly removing all categories from an article for no clear reason ([1], [2]) and then providing a bogus warning to the editor reverting your vandalism ([3]), nominating an article for speedy deletion for an obviously inapplicable reason ([4]), leading to the aforementioned AfD, uploading improperly licenced images ([5], [6]), creating articles that appear to be machine translations of texts of an uncertain provenance ([7]), and making edits that appear to push a political opinion ([8], [9]) in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy – an impression that your user page does nothing to dispel.

For these reasons, I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia until such time as you persuade me (or another administrator reviewing any unblock request that you may choose to make) that you understand our ground rules and that you will comply with them from now on. You may appeal this block by following the procedure set out in WP:Appealing a block, but I counsel you to read WP:GAB before doing so.  Sandstein  19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. since I am blocked and can only edit this page I would like to make my defense of Pig Empire, "To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.", Steal This Book. And Page 198 of The Linguistics Wars By Randy Allen Harris "...label was Woodstock Nation, which was coined in a formal declaration of independence from, and state of war with, 'the Pig Empire' (Hoffman, 1971).." Also, it stood for over a year as a link to the economy of the United States at most it should return to that. And did they really use Russian Google to research it? The user who proposed deletion has retracted the proposal}}

Yeah, I'm a bit confused here as well. You might have done some questionable things, but nothing that would warrant a block, especially not an indefinite block. You've got a lot of good edits to your name. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merits, but I've declined a duplicated request, above. In the meantime, Lenerd, could you briefly address some of the concerns raised by this block? For example, the blocking admin cites several problem edits which bear discussion. You might also wish to discuss this edit, which was reverted by Onorem, for which you warned Onorem here. I acknowledge that you appear to have good faith edits, which is great - but I'm not at all inclined to unblock unless you're able and willing to discuss the specific incidents that caused the block in the first place. Thank you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the edit to George Carlin and the nomination of National-Anarchism for speedy deletion with user:Charles Matthews The edit to Carlin was about a quote of his found in [12], "For a while, I thought of myself an atheist until I realized it was a belief, too. It's a shame everything has to have a label." If the man made it obvious that he was not a capital "A" atheist and rejected other labels why would an encyclopedic article categorize him in categories he spent his career distancing himself from and condemning? I made the first edit with that in the summary and the next edit with the site in the summary, but after I realized it probably wouldn't stick I stopped pursuing the matter. As for national-anarchism putting it up for speedy deletion may not have been the wisest choice but I found the label "nonsense" to be fitting for an article that uses dead links to yahoo! groups for references as well as [[13] which my browser (Mozilla Firefox 3.0) tells me is an attack site. The rest of the references seem to be links to shoddy sites for followers with the occasional interview with the webmaster of one of these sites thrown in. I agree it shouldn't be deleted (and apologize for nominating it) but it needs to be seriously reviewed. I have put a lot of work into building my reputation as a constructive editor and vandal fighter and I am going to do everything I can to clear my name. That covers "reasons" 1-4 as for the rest... Five and six I have discusses previously, "...the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be 'unintentional misinformation' at most on my part which is not vandalism." As for number seven I don't see what is wrong with translating an article from the Catalan wikipedia to the English wikipedia I called for an expert to help out, as you can see from my userpage, I speak no Catalan. Number eight refers to a redirect which was nominated for deletion after I became blocked, and the nominating user said that my blockage helped bring him to the conclusion that it was malicious. But once I explained the matter on my talk page the user decided to remove it from deletion. As for number nine, the edit to that portal was made because I found the term voluntary association in direct conflict with the rest of the paragraph. So I removed it, then it was reverted with the question asked, "why was this removed?" so I answered it, "because it's ancap bullshit. contracts are a form of coercion." Might I add that the reverting using in that incident was also the user who nominated Pig Empire and subsequently removed that nomination for deletion? (Lenerd (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This makes me more inclined to believe that you are here because you intend to contribute positively, but you do not seem to realise that the way in which you conduct yourself is disruptive. Your Carlin edits are pure vandalism; the opinion of Carlin about being labeled may be noted in the article but is utterly irrelevant for our encyclopedic practice of categorising articles; furthermore, your warning was frivolous and the edit summary did not reflect what you wrote above. The speedy delete tag was equally frivolous, as the article being poorly sourced does not make it patent nonsense; the proper approach would have been a WP:PROD or an {{unsourced}} tag. The image uploads violate our image use policies because they lack proper attribution (and your attribution of "Author=A state sanctioned serial killer" is immature at best); furthermore, they violate copyright law and put Wikipedia at legal risk because you do not whether they were in fact taken by a US federal employee. Translating articles from other Wikipedias is fine (although one should preferably translate them to English, not to Engrish) - but we could not know that the text came from another Wikipedia, because you did not provide any attribution for the source, thereby also violating the GFDL and the copyright of the Catalan Wikipedia editors. The summary of the edit to Portal:Anarchism/Intro ("bullshit", as in your unblock request above) was simply offensive and has no place in the writing of a collaborative encyclopedia, whatever an "ancap" may be. Finally, the "Pig Empire" redirect was made without reference whatsoever as to its (alleged) literary background and because of that, it also looks like an immature and pointless expression of disapproval with the U.S. In sum, I am more inclined to think now that you mean well, but I still don't think that you have demonstrated that you have the maturity, the ability to write from a neutral point of view and the collaboration skills required for you to be an asset rather than a detriment to our project.  Sandstein  16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlin edits weren't vandalism if the user believes he was improving the wiki by removing them. People have many different views about how we handle categorization. It's nothing more than a content dispute. He made a few mistakes, which no one took the time to help him with, not even to leave a warning. Instead you just indef. blocked him. He's got a right to be pissed off about this. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been involved in two of the supposedly most egregious cases of Lenerd's behaviour (ancap bullshit and Pig Empire), I have to agree with Ned. The editor saw some things he felt didn't belong, and ineptly tried to remove them in good faith. You would be hard pressed to find an editor who hasn't run afoul of our image copyright policy. A slap on the wrists and a warning that any suspect edits will result in a block should be more than sufficient. Skomorokh 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I will unblock this user as soon as I am persuaded that that he understands our ground rules and will comply with them from now on. So far, he has just insisted that he did nothing wrong, which is not a good sign.  Sandstein  05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct you...

You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.

• You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)
• Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of a great many editors. (See also Wikipedia:Consensus.)
• Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)
• WikiLawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; not moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)

and it is with that in mind that I will continue to edit Wikipedia. (Lenerd (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to express my solidarity with Redthoreau (talk) during his block. I want to get back to editing. I am aware of Wikipedia's principles and will always keep them in mind while editing, however, I will continue as I always have to do everything I can to improve the encyclopedia and if that means sidestepping some I must make it clear that I will and believe all editors should. As badly as I wish to get back to editing if it means putting rules before the encyclopedia, I'm sorry but I won't do that. But I realize that the way I had been editing may have been disruptive in some way and for that I apologize and will try to tone down my "zeal." (Lenerd (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. I note, though, that you continue to refer to vague generalities without addressing the specifics of your conduct. Also, why do you think that expressing "solidarity" with an editor who is currently blocked for what seems to be ideological edit warring makes us more likely to believe that you will not continue to disrupt Wikipedia if you are unblocked?  Sandstein  07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Us?" who is this us? from the look of my talk page there is a significant amount of support for my unblocking. May I make it known that of the two admins who declined my unblock request User:Sandahl and User:Ultraexactzz, Ultraexactzz also declined User:Redthoreau's unblock request as well. The admin who blocked Redthoreau (User:Nishkid64) appears to have a friendship with one of the editors (User:Blnguyen) Redthoreau had conflict with and was blocked as a result. The other admin who declined my unblock request (User:Sandahl) also has a friendship with User:Blnguyen as can be seen by checking the file links on Image:Blnguyen tulip.jpg. That is why I express solidarity with Redthoreau (talk) because he is a similar position of admin abuse. Also Thomas I would like say that you truly have lived up to your reputation of handing out indefinite blocks for frivolous reasons, [14] [15] [16] I feel it is my duty to warn you that your desire to hand out blocks willy-nilly has given the encyclopedia a bad name. You have made this more of hostile a place for and driven away more constructive editors than any of the actual vandals that you should be fighting ever could. (Lenerd (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And you are right, I stand by my claim that I had done nothing wrong because if I ever thought what I was doing was disruptive I would not have done it. I understand there is a lot of vandalism that goes on, I have reverted some of it before, but that doesn't give you the right to label my edits as such and demand that I kiss your ass. (Lenerd (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) Also, now if I was unblocked I would feel that I owed it to the users who "vouched" for me to steer clear of any actions that could be seen as disruptive in the future. (Lenerd (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've asked for review on WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I kind of flew off the handle up there didn't I? (Lenerd (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I can understand how you feel. While I don't completely agree with the blocking admin, and I don't think it's necessary for you to have to spell it out, it looks like they just want some reassurance that you'll be more cautious about leaving vandalism warnings for other users. Personally, I think it was just a matter of miscommunication. So rather than asking you to say that you did something wrong, which I don't think you technically did, I think it is more appropriate to ask this: Do you think you will be more cautious with user warnings? -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. (Lenerd (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lenerd, I appreciate the unsolicited "solidarity" during my short block. I would also like to express here that I do not agree with your indef block, and believe that there (could) be hints of "ideological" motivation inherent within such a brisk and severe punishment. With that said, I hope if your block is eventually lifted, that you will tread lightly (and reign in your spirited emotions) upon reinstatement, as not to provide possible fodder for those who may be looking for any justification to pounce. You have skills that could benefit wikipedia, hopefully you will be allowed to continue providing them, while also toning down your occasional spurts of bravado.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted the unblock review discussion at WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd part 2. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just tell me what I need to say or do and I will. (Lenerd (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why am I still blocked? (Lenerd (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yo Lenerd, after reading your explanation above regarding Hoffman's use of the phrase, I have retracted the proposed deletion of Pig Empire. It seemed like a malicious redirect, and you had been indef blocked for vandalism among other things, so it was a likely candidate for deletion. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for your quick response. Regards, Skomorokh 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at the adminstrator's noticeboard, I attempted to unblock you. However I recieve an error message that says that you are already unblocked, contradicting the block log...

I have no idea.

brenneman 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block log has now caught up, I see:

18:39, 7 August 2008 WODUP (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Lenerd (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=230366060#Block_review_for_User:Lenerd_part_2)

Why it didn't tell me that five minutes ago, again I have no idea... But regardless, you're unbollocked.
brenneman 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this finally got resolved. Let me know if you ever need any help or have any questions. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, and thank you for your recent application to use the counter-vandalism tool, VandalSniper. As you may be aware, VandalSniper is a very powerful tool, that has the potential to disrupt the encyclopedia if misused. On this basis, regretfully I have chosen to decline your application at this time, in that I do not believe you have demonstrated an adequete level of trust to be given access to the program. Please reapply in the future, when you believe you have met the levels of trust required, and in the meantime you may wish to visit this resource for information on alternative Counter-Vandalism Tools. Kind regards, AGK (talk ◊ contact) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' really understand the littel bit of code you changed, but is there a reason you think the Anarchism Portal should display anniversaries that have little or nothing to do with Anarchism? Cheers, Murderbike (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to either remove two infoboxes, or else to make them seriously less aggressive: User:Lenerd/deadprez and User:Lenerd/VP. These userboxes violate our Userbox policy Wikipedia:Userboxes (content restrictions) and Wikipedia:User page (statements of violence). It is not about who you advocate being hung and so on (if you know of similar userboxes referring to other people, I'll take the same action on those), it is the call for violent action itself (even if it is rhetorical in nature) that is not allowed. Fram (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lenerd/deadprez, I've deleted both userboxes as well as their successors.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandros Grigoropoulos: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Tyler Durden? Is there evidence that he is a particular target of the LaRouche movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hammer, Sickle, and Circle-A avatar.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to give a heads up, that the logo you use on User:Lenerd/terror has been updated to svg. i don't like to mess around with personal pages, so i'm leaving you a link: File:Halliburton logo.svg. regards --Ben Stone 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit [17], generally speaking you shouldn't use a templated warning on the pages of editors who have been here for a long time and obviously know WP policies. If you feel the editor has done something questionable, it's taken a lot better if you'll actually take the time to contact them, rather than leave a templated message. Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Grsz¹¹ 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call it clutter if you want, it's just suppose to go to people who are active at that article. Grsz¹¹ 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does making two one of which was a unique edit and the 2nd being a change of capitalization involve me in a an edit war? There is neither a content dispute nor a confrontation. In reference to "unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial," having a white mother would make someone a white American as well. From the article Kenyan American "Barack Obama, President of the United States of America of half Luo ancestry. Obama is also partly Dutch, English, French, German, Irish and Scottish descent." Also, take some advice and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Lenerd (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you made the same edit earlier, contrary to consensus, it was reverted with an explanation that it was contrary to consensus, and then you added the same information again. That is edit warring, not to mention a violation of the policy of consensus. And I don't normally template regulars if they edit in good faith. I assumed good faith the first time you violated consensus, but not the second time. And you take some advice: Sometimes regulars need to be templated when they behave as if they started editing yesterday. And if you would prefer that, instead of templating you for policy violation, I go directly to making a WP:ANI report, that's what I'll do next time. Now, all that having been said, if you stop violating consensus you probably will never hear from me again. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to meet him.

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.99.249 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your report at WP:AIV [18] on Ward3001 doesn't list any DIFFs showing a legal threat. If you have proof of a threat, it should probably be taken to WP:ANI for legal matters. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is no legal threat. There isn't even vandalism. False report, which is itself a policy violation. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit summary in regards to the commentary on the Super Bowl right now. However, given Wikipedia's policy on fair use as well as US Code Section 107, it's not a copyright violation to give a commentary of events here provided that our commentary is not plagiarized from the television broadcasters either in terms of pictures or their words. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

you edited the Europa Universalis article (here) and added quite an outrageously implausible little bit. I quote:

With this expansion, it is now possible to link Paradox's principal strategic games (Europa Universalis: Rome (with Vae Victis), Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis II, Victoria and Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday (with Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon)) into one twenty-one-century long scenario lasting from 280 BCE to 1964 CE. However, due to the great alternations history is likely to undergo in such a long playing time, conversion between the games might not work as expected.

I can't find any info on this anywhere. Care to elaborate where you've taken that information from? --Daniel Klein (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message that someone has been making edits from my IP address. I haven't been on WP for a month or so. To which articles were you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Dismas|^(talk) 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, comrade, I saw you support the German APPD. I just want do say, that the APPD isnt anarchist! It just a stupid fun party! Anyway, greetings. --AnarchoAdrian (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk page and contribute to article. It was very global before and a bunch of people came along and gutted all the relevant material. Do you want to do the work to find what is needed and put it back? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

council communism, left communism, freudo-marxism and autonomism are also libertarian socialist currents but all of them happen to be marxist currents. this is why libertarian socialism cannot be said to be an anarchist "school" since it can be said it includes schools of thought outside it.--Eduen (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it can be said that anarchism itself is a form of libertarian socialism and of course besides it there exist within libertarian socialism coucil communism, left communism, autonomism, Charles Fourier, etc. But as far as actual libertarian marxists speaking on their relationship with anarchism there is of course the case of Rosa Luxembourg who did give the subject some lines which of course would want to make one think she wouldnt like to be called an anarchist. The subject is complex of course [19] [20] but i think you will have to bring some citations or something on how some libertarian marxists regard themselves also as anarchists. Otherwise libertarian socialism obviously cannot go on as an anarchist school of thought.--Eduen (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made was to revert the name of the man mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article from "Simon ben Garfunkel" back to "Simon ben Gamaliel." You have since reverted this to the vandalised version and warned me that my edit was unconstructive. I would appreciate it if you removed your warning from my talk page as you have not assumed good faith on this occasion and have reverted an article to its vandalised state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.136.211 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- why are you requesting protection of User:Jcm267? Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lenerd,

I noticed you'd added an Afd template to the discussion log for Aqua buddha. The discussion was redlinked, and the article now redirects to Rand Paul#Controversy_over_college_activities. I removed the redlinked discussion from the Afd logs, if you're still unhappy with the redirects you'll need to take it WP:Redirects for discussion. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What all do you know about Evasion and Peter? I have recently been privy to some...stuff. Fairly compelling stuff. Let's share what we know. --SuperEditor (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your article tagging on the article's talk page or the tags will be removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this talk page. And remove that template.--g. balaxaZeႫ 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lenerd. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]