User talk:Blondeguynative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blondeguynative, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Blondeguynative! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

United Russia[edit]

PLEASE, engage in talk (Talk:United Russia) instead of mindlessly reverting. This gives the impression you are either POV pushing or editing on someone's behalf. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Armenia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Green Giant (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Green Giant (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Twsx. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Democratic Party (United States), with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 15:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Democratic Party (United States) with this edit, 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. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have reverted my alteration to your original unsourced edit to Democratic Party (United States). Your original contribution appears to be a POV edit, not supported by any evidence. Can I please suggest that you supply reliable sources or your contribution will be reverted. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are asked to provide reliable sources for your edits, as I have one on a couple of articles, restoring your edits without doing so is edit warring, which is a waste of everyone's time. What a Wikipedia article says about a political party's ideology is not a matter of your opinion against someone else's, it is a matter of sources, which should be provided in the body of the article. If you believe that Wikipedia does not require reliable sources for a party's ideology, please provide a refrene to the Wikipedia pokicy that suppotrts that claim. Ground Zero | t 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As you have not given any supporting evidence for your recent edit, nor had the courtesy to reply to my note of 25 January; I have again reverted your edit. Please do not revert again, unless you have confirmed supporting evidence. Please also take note of Ground Zero's comments directly above. Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources and not individual point of view edits. If I can help, please let me know. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite these requests, and Wikipedia policies, you pushed through edits on about 50 state Democratic party articles without discussion and without evidence. I have reverted them. Do not expect that you can edit in Wikipedia on your own terms and without regard to Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. It doesn't work. Please learn about how to contribute to Wikipedia constructively so that you do not waste your time and ours. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 04:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

While I still believe the sources for these pages are redundant considering sources are provided on each ideology's page (Modern liberalism in the United States, Progressivism in the United States, New Democrats) I will come to you with my proposed edits with sources. I'm not sure where I would go for the proposals considering we are talking about 50 separate pages and you are so far the only person I have seen talking about ideologies. (Please suggest a place if you know one). Social liberalism[1]
Progressivism</ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20080629030845/http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/progrsvsm.htm\>
Third Wayhttp://books.google.com/books?id=bVQ0AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT254&dq=new+democrats&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qDDtUqamGunOyQHIsYHACQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false I hope the sources are satisfactory, I will change them if I get a go ahead from you. [[User:|Blondeguynative]] | t 17:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good start. But I don't have any particular expertise in what the ideology of the US Democratic Party is. I am assuming that you are not evaluating each state party separately, and concluding that each of them has these ideologies, but rather that you are treating them as branches of the national party. That may be a reasonable conclusion to make -- I don't know, but I expect that people who monitor Talk:Democratic Party (United States) would have views on this, and on the party's ideology. That would be the best place to initiate this discussion. If you get consensus there, then you would make able to make the changes without objection from me. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Please use edit summaries in future edits. It is not helpful when nobody has any clue what you are adding or removing from an article. Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon I note that you have again failed to explain your unsourced/POV edits or to reply to the various editors who have requested you to cease contributing unsourced or point-of view edits. If you continue without giving the courtesy of quoting sources or replying to queries, then you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor while adding unsourced content[edit]

You are making content changes and marking them as minor (and usually without an edit summary). Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. Help:Minor edit states that 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". I also note that at least one set of edits added unsourced content about the party's ideology to Constitution Party (United States). Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People's Voice (Iran), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre (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) 09:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Constitution Party (United States)[edit]

As our article on American Nationalism says, "American nationalism is the nationalism that asserts that Americans are a nation and that promotes the cultural unity of Americans." Every major political party supports this, and I wouldn't call it an ideology, nor does our article. Nor would I call Constitutionalism appropriate either despite the name of the party, can't remember who added that. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

American conservatism simply takes the reader to Conservatism in the United States instead, so I added the latter to the article in place of the silly National conservatism that isn't about the US at all. I know you Doug know this, but Blondeguynative might not.... our manual of style expects us to write with a global perspective, not blindly US-centric verbiage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Democratic Party (United States) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • conservative]] groups to left-wing populist and [[progressive]] groups. Most groups have overlap with each other.
  • welfare]] programs,<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/social/ch9.htm U.S. GOVERNMENT > Social Support > The Social Safety Net<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> believing it to be harmful to efficiency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Egypt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |legislature = [[House of Representatives (Egypt)|House of Representatives]] ''(dissolved)'')
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California Republican Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | ideology = [Conservatism in the United States|Conservatism]]<br>[[Fiscal conservatism]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grand Alliance (Bangladesh) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Hi, since you may not have been around long, be sure to read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR and WP:TALK; if you break WP:3RR, or even if you edit war before reaching the 3RR threshold, you could be sanctioned. So after you get reverted, go to the talk page and start a talk thread to discuss your desired changes and the WP:RSs that support you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited For Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre (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) 08:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

International affiliation of Democratic Party (US)[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my edit to Democratic Party (United States, changing the international affiliation of the DP from Alliance of Democrats to none. This does not match List of political parties in the United States#Major political parties, which lists the international affiliation as Alliance of Democrats. Any explanation? --WikiWinters (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Butting in with an observation only.... I find "matching" within wikipedia to be lousy reason for/against any particular edit. What's important are the outside things that wikipedia defines as reliable sources, and that all the pages asserting the same fact are adequately supported with outside RSs. If we WP:FOC, what do the outside RSs say on this point? Should both articles be updated to reflect the RSs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but the problem to begin with is that they don't match. This needs to be fixed. Either remove it from the other page or add it to Democratic Party (United States). --WikiWinters (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the specific edit in question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not mark non-minor edits as minor[edit]

Hello Blondeguynative. I see you were already asked by User:Dougweller in March to be careful not to mark non-minor edits as minor. However, it seems you are still doing this on a regular basis. Most of your recent edits involve making unsourced, disputed, and/or controversial changes to the ideology field of various political parties. These are not the sort of edits which should be marked as minor, as they are introducing significant changes to the content of the article (which, as you have probably seen, not everyone agrees with). Your use of the minor edit flag for these edits makes it seem as though you wish for these controversial edits to escape scrutiny by other editors. Please review Help:Minor edit and adjust your editing behaviour accordingly. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I see you are ignoring 3 editors and continuing to mark major edits as minor. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Cenk Uygur. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a violation of WP:BLP - the subject clearly said "I am a fervent agnostic. " Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Panhellenic Socialist Movement.

Also, you must stop marking as minor edits where you add, change, or remove significant amounts of information. Your recent edits to Panhellenic Socialist Movement, Democratic Party (United States), and Indonesian Democratic Party (to name just a few of many dozens or hundreds) are not minor! Given your numerous previous warnings, it seems likely that you are deliberately using the minor edit flag to conceal vandalism or controversial edits. Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Democratic Party (United States) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party[edit]

Please don't again attempt to change or add ideology and position for the ALP without discussion. These matters are NOT universally agreed. Nor does the party really even have a consistent, over-riding ideology or position. You MUST take the matter to the article's Talk page first. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Libertarian Party[edit]

Hey there,

I was just wondering if you could please justify your addition of "Centre-right" as the position on the US Libertarian Party page.


Thanks,

TheCascadian 07:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

With all the edits you make to both US and UK political articles, is it not about time you produced a User page, in order that we may know a little more about you? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States)[edit]

Be careful with references, especially with politics. I can find a reference to mention anything, including information that doesn't express a neutral point of view. I'm sure you wouldn't recognize some references from Moveon.org or the Drudge Report....I don't know enough about the reference you cite, so I'll leave it, but don't be surprised if someone doesn't......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pvmoutside, I'd suggest that if the references are dubious, they should be removed (along with any content added to the article dependent on the citations). If Blondeguynative wishes to introduce sources other editors/contributors are wary of, he needs to open an RSN for evaluation of reliability. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Conservative Party[edit]

Though I doubt this will be read (as it seems you generally ignore messages posted to your talk page) I thought I'd take the time to ask you not to make unhelpful edits to the Conservative Party (UK) page; the "internal factions" section is sufficiently referenced and therefore will remain in the infobox, please do not remove it again. If you persistently remove it I will contact an administrator. It would appear as per other messages left here that you have made a habit of assertive and non-constructive edits to political party pages, certainly changing the Libertarian Party political position to centre-right is embarrassingly ill-informed. Hayek79 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"embarrassingly ill-informed" is quite an assertion. If you had looked a little further you would have noticed that that edit was me putting back something that at the time someone had said was wrongfully removed. However it was worked out because again someone removed it, which is what I did the first time anyway.
Furthermore you are right with the Conservative party, the reference was accurate. I had removed them because it seems something best put in the article not the infobox, which had been the case for some other pages. If you think it should be kept I trust your judgement. (Blondeguynative) 7:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it is not a necessary reference, you can change whatever you want. (Blondeguynative)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defense Department. 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) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Green Party of the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Democratic Party (United States) 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 get 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.
You've reverted four times in last 24 hours, Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ideology.htm