User talk:Revmqo

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


Orphaned non-free media (File:UMC Deacon Logo.gif)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:UMC Deacon Logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Mass Edits to "United Methodist Church"[edit]

Dear User:Revmqo, I received your message on my talk page. I apologize if some of your edits were reversed. I only meant to reverse edits which deleted a large chunk of information originally present in the article. For your information, I wrote most of that article on The United Methodist Church. If the "Rev" in your username implies that you are ordained or are a seminarian, it was not appropriate for you to state that I was "drinking and editing". In your recent edits to the article, you removed a large amount of constructive information which I added to the article recently. I am informing you that I plan to restore this information in the article in the near future. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Revmqo, your message on my talk page was unwarranted. Please look at these edits, which removed a large amount of information from the article. I restored the version of the article prior to this in order to undo these edits. As I mentioned above, I apologize if some of your edits were reversed in the process. If you are indeed a Methodist Christian minister, I urge you to please try to dialogue with peace and respect, rather than make baseless accusations. You have been warned by other users for this kind of behavior. I'm more than willing to work with you on the article, if you only allow me to. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you restored the constructive edits you made but what do you think about these deletions? I personally think that they should be restored. What do you think? Also how about the information I added on the agreement between The United Methodist Church and the historic African-American Methodist denominations? Do you think this is helpful? I look forward to your comments. I would be more than happy to manually re-add this information to the article, if it is alright with you. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
First and foremost, a simple reading of your talk page leaves you little room to throw accusations. If you want to make edits, do so. But don't undo everyone else's edits in mass action. Make rational/reasoned/discussed edits section by section. Reverting a page in its entirety by posting on old copy on top of the new version is not productive. You removed your own edits when you made your mass edit. This makes others think that you are making irrational edits or do so out of anger. All I ask is take you time and make reasonable and cited edits.--Revmqo (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Revmqo, thank your for your reply. Once again, I'm sorry I undid some constructive edits. My intention was to restore the vast amount of information deleted in these edits. Are you fine with me restoring that information? If not, I'm happy to discuss these edits with you. I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot but I would like to work together with you on the article. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed on the talk page that you improved the Clergy section of the article. My apologies for not seeing that earlier. I can understand why you are upset that some of your constructive work was undone. I'll be more careful in the future. I hope we can both work together to improve the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point.... Think before you edit. And before you start hurling accusations about my username and your presumption of proper conduct in the world, take a long hard look at your own history. Now by all means, make the edits you desire, but let's use the talk page if they are major edits.--Revmqo (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of local Methodist churches[edit]

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of List of local Methodist churches. Lists generally don't fall under A7, which is meant for individual organizations or groups, and both places on the list assert notability anyway. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Methodist Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democrat and Republican (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) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration on The United Methodist Church[edit]

Hello User:Revmquo, I hope you are having a good Thanksgiving~ I am wondering if it is okay with you if I reintroduce some of the deletions made here, as well as reintroduce the information I added in the ecumenism section. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to be patronizing! By all means make edits, just take time to consider the ramifications of mass edits. How about editing section by section?--Revmqo (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I will make the edits soon! God bless, AnupamTalk 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for following up on my talk page. Well, they are rare practice (as in most other denominations) but are performed by some pastors within The United Methodist Church. For this reason, in The World Almanac reference, the word sometimes is used before the word exorcisms, in reference to the practice in The United Methodist Church. I personally support keeping the information and The World Almanac reference in the article. Shane Raynor, an editor at The United Methodist Publishing House, and also the editor of Methodist Thinker, wrote an article about the practice you might be interested in reading. I hope this helps. Blessings, AnupamTalk 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Your wording indicates that exorcism is a practice of the church, not a practice of some within the church. It is not an official practice, and even if there are a few people who think they are performing exorcisms, they are doing so without the authority of the church. I'm sure that there are people who drive VW Beetles to church as part of their religious practice, but it doesn't mean that the practice is a ritual of the church. I would like to see the word "exorcism" removed because it has no relevance to the article.--Revmqo (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I caution you on your use of the following source: 124. William J. Abraham (2012). "United Methodist Evangelicals and Ecumenism" (in English). Southern Methodist University. Retrieved 11 November 2012. Clearly the author has prohibited the use of this article for citation without permission.--Revmqo (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In response to your suggestion to read the article by Raynor above, clearly he is discussing the Roman Catholic Church, not the United Methodist Church. He may suggest open thinking on the issue, but this falls short of what your edit implies.--Revmqo (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Revmqo, the paragraph in the article reads: "Like other historic Christian churches, The United Methodist Church has official liturgies for services of Holy Communion, baptism, weddings, funerals, ordination, anointing of the sick and daily office prayer services. Other practices, such as healing services and exorcisms are also performed." I am open to compromising on this issue. In the first sentence do you notice that it says that the "United Methodist Church has official liturgies"? Healing services and exorcisms are not listed among these official liturgies. The second sentence says "Other practices, such as healing services and exorcisms are also performed." This sentence, however, does not indicate that there is an official liturgy for the practice. As a compromise, I am willing to modify the latter sentence to state "Other practices, such as healing services and exorcisms are also performed by some pastors in The United Methodist Church." Indeed Rev. Daniel McLain Hixon writes on the practice here. In addition, deliverance and exorcism ceremonies are common amongst our United Methodist brethren overseas, especially in Africa. Would you be willing to accept this compromise? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Blessings, AnupamTalk 02:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the source by William J. Abraham. I will send a message to him tonight and if he objects to the source's inclusion in the article, I will remove it. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression you have no intention to compromise. Maybe you should have others read the sentence flow. When you use the word "other" to start a sentence immediately following a list, you are implying that the list is now continued. Nice try on the blog source, but again it isn't on point.--Revmqo (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Revmqo, thanks for your reply. I am definitely open to compromising with you on the subject :) I understand your point when you write "When you use the word "other" to start a sentence immediately following a list, you are implying that the list is now continued." Would you like to suggest another compromise? I look forward to your comments. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 02:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Again I suggested one change to your entire edit. Remove the word exorcism. Clearly you have an agenda by insisting on it's inclusion. A review of United Methodist Theology, Polity, Doctrine and Tradition do not include the practice of exorcism. Again if someone is practicing exorcism, they are doing so outside the church and can likely be tried for heresy. Why do you want to include a topic that is deliberately misleading at best?--Revmqo (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the paper by William J. Abraham as you suggested until I receive a response from him. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply in regards to the discussion on exorcism. With respect to you, I am unsure about the veracity of this statement: "Again if someone is practicing exorcism, they are doing so outside the church and can likely be tried for heresy." The practice is performed by some clergy in The United Methodist Church, especially in the African continent. The source Evangelical Christianity and Democracy in Africa, published by Oxford University Press states: "Indeed, anone who has participated in the revivals and prayer-meetings and consultations and exorcisms of the United Methodist churches in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, which are addressed in the chapters by Mukonyora and Cruz e Silva, will know how very evangelical they are." What do you think? Respectfully, AnupamTalk 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite a vague reference in a work about the history of democracy in Africa. Again, this is an exception rather than a practice. I have reviewed UMC doctrinal resources and it isn't even mentioned. Why? Because it isn't an official practice of the denomination. I am happier with your new edit, but still believe that it is irrelevant. Again, I question your patronizing responses. How about fair discussion with a real possibility for compromise?--Revmqo (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Revmqo, I try to be polite to all users I interact with on Wikipedia. I believe it's best to act respectfully to others and feel it is my responsibility as a Christian. I've been open to a fair discussion with a real possibility for compromise from the beginning with you. I am glad that you are happier with my new edit. Deliverance and exorcism are discussed in the New Testament numerous times. As a result, in my opinion, it is therefore important to mention that some clergy in our denomination continue to practice the rite. I am open to any comments you might have. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Revmqo, I noticed your edits here and am willing to accept them as a compromise. It was nice working with you and I hope you can see that I was open to a discussion and compromise all along. Have a nice Thanksgiving, AnupamTalk 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, do you have issues with honesty? You only removed the post by Billy Abraham after I asked for help in reporting you for Plagarism yet again. You attempt to make it look like you removed the post immediately, but you only did it because you know you were risking be banned yet again. If you really do think you are being civil in your posts, then I suggest you ask an uninvolved third party to read your posting history. You have a track record of being less than cooperative. Again I challenge 1 word in a 1500+ word post and you can't compromise? I don't have a desire to do battle until eternity, but I do hope you will learn that your own point of view might not be shared by everyone else.--Revmqo (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I just received an email from William Abraham stating that I have his permission to use his source in the article in the manner in which I originally had it. If you provide your email address here, I can forward the message to you, or to anyone whom you would like. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving[edit]

Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Marine v. marine[edit]

Thank you for looking at the Manual of Style, most people do not trouble themselves. I sort of approach this from the other way. Rather than looking for a reason of why I ought not to capitalize a word, I look for a requirement to do so. Consider the word "airman." it does not require a capital unless used as a title, "Airman Jones." Or consider soldier," or "infantryman," or any other number of word of the ilk. If we decide for some reason to capitalize "marine," why not the others?

If "marine" somehow requires a capital, certainly "marine artillery does." There needs to be a rule, a line.

Quite right that NYT Manual of Style allows "marine" to be capitalized. Further, the marines themselves require it. But we do not look to these two group for guidance. (Lord know it took me years to recover from how Leavenworth taught me to write!) Lots of newspaper usages are wrong, their art requires their own conventions.

In any case, I believe that we over-capitalize. I blame German where all nouns are capitalized. I think it is bad writing. If you can show me why I am wrong, if you can give me some clear rule as to why "marine" is treated differently from "sailor," I will be pleased to be convinced. Until then, we ought to follow standard English. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your wish is my command[edit]

I have removed "glorious" and added a link in the Marines article. Auchansa (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

United States Army[edit]

What was incorrectly formatted here? Each subject has its own article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put these engagements in the article, you should put them in the body of the article. They are not major engagements of the US Army and don't belong where you placed them. You also provided no citation/source as proof. WP:CITATIONS--Revmqo (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Further, the battles listed in the box are those for which the Army would have a battle streamer, the ones you listed are minor in the overall scheme of things.--Revmqo (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why they have to be in the text of the article in order to be put in the infobox. We have separate articles for them and the infobox provides a link to where the reader can access them. Anyhow, I don't have the time to just do everything all at once. While these were not the major wars of US military history, they were more serious engagements than the Boxer Rebellion and the Somalia operation. I would be perfectly fine with a consensus on only including the major wars (Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish-American, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq), but there is no reason to omit these other wars but still include things like the US suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, the Somalia episode, and the Iran hostage rescue operation, which were far smaller engagements. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Consult definition of blowout.[edit]

It would seem hypocritical to cite POV as reasoning not to use objectively apt term. Blowout: "an easy or one-sided victory"

Alabama had almost double time of possession, 227 more yards of offense, held Notre Dame to 32 rushing yards and two of eight 3rd down conversions. They went into halftime with a 35-0 score and held Notre Dame completely scoreless until 4:08 remained in the third quarter.

The only reason I could give for NOT using the term "blowout" would be to remain sympathetic to Notre Dame (which is not objectivity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.163.153 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Come, O Thou Traveler Unknown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis (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) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew University alumni list[edit]

I replied to your comments on Talk:Drew University#Notable alumni. 71.125.71.222 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We moved the discussion on the Drew alumni list from User talk:ElKevbo to Talk:Drew University. I replied to your comments about the alumni list and Susan Morrison. 71.251.33.239 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I replied regarding the 7 Drew alumni whose notability you question. 71.251.33.239 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Holly Bakke[edit]

Look at the last page of the Bakke reference. It's lists the authors. She's not the author. 71.251.33.239 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong[edit]

Please stop deleting this edit. As is clearly stated, the source is Neil Armstrong's brother, speaking in a TV documentary. He described in some detail the circumstances in which Neil had shown him the line prior to launch. What more do you want? Another Matt (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew alumni[edit]

I replied to your comments at Talk:Drew University. I now have an account. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Drew University alumni[edit]

Thanks for helping me fight off vandalism.--Nnnnkkkk (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would move the Drew University Alumni List to List of Drew University people, then add all the faculty and presidents on that list as well.--Nnnnkkkk (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Drew University people[edit]

I am confused about why you have reversed my changes. There was a discussion several days ago on the Talk:Drew University page about consolidating alumni, faculty, and presidents onto one page. I also mentioned it on this page in the List of Drew University alumni. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, a lot of universities have a consolidated list. For example, look that said list of Rutgers University people and list of Princeton University people. That being said, unless others support consolidation, I will leave the alumni list separate. However, I think another editor deleted the list of Drew University presidents. Since presidents are definitely a part of the college's opeartion's, I will include them on the Drew University page. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal on Lists of Notable Drew University People[edit]

A proposal has been initiated on the Drew University talk page regarding how notable alumni, faculty, and presidents should be listed. Feel free to join the discussion. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Iraq[edit]

I didn't make an "edit masked by misleading edit summary" just because I didn't specify every single change I made in the edit summary. Few people do that, and the very use of edit summaries is optional. So, I don't think that was a good reason for reverting me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Which controversial changes did I make to this article? What unsourced material did I add? And again, I could as well have written nothing in the edit summary, it's not mandatory. I noted that I was removing interlanguage links because it was the biggest change in terms of reducing the article's size.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of posts - Talk:Ted Cruz[edit]

Hi Revmqo. It's not a good idea to remove your talk page posts from an article talk page like you did with this edit, as it destroys the continuity of the page. I have restored the material. -- Dianna (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at Louisiana[edit]

I'm not sure what you think you are doing, but you are definitely going about it the wrong way. WP:BURDEN says that "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." You removed: "Statehood, the Confederacy, and Beyond Louisiana was admitted to the Union as the eighteenth state on April 30, 1812.

On January 26, 1861, Louisiana seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America. Defeated early in the Civil War, Louisiana was reinstated in the Union on April 25, 1862, long before the end of the war."

The only reason that I can think of to remove that is if it was blatantly wrong. Being unsourced isn't a good enough reason. So why did you do it? You are also at 3RR - as I'm not sure if you are aware of our policy on this, I'm giving you a formal warning below. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you should read WP:PROVEIT. Revmqo (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have, it says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". What exactly are you challenging here? Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It also says " The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Revmqo (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly avoiding my question. I'll turn it into a statement. If I find an editor with a pattern of edits deleting non-contentious material while refusing to give a rationale, I am likely either to block that editor or take them to WP:ANI. There's nothing wrong with removing unsourced content that is contentious (although you should explain that in an edit summary and preferably trying to source it yourself), and I can see some edits that do this correctly. But this particular edit wasn't justified and doesn't appear to have deleted contentious material or material likely to be disputed. Hopefully this was just a mistake and one you won't be likely to make again. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually it is not the only time that he has removed non-contentious material from an article. He did it in the Ted Cruz article. He removed basic information about Cruz's life, such as schools Cruz attended, journals that Cruz edited, etc., material that was never seriously challenged. I can't read Revmqo's mind, but he made all of the edits, i.e., removing non-contentious material, after there was a long dispute over Cruz's legal status to run for President of the United States. It was debate over editing that Revmqo ultimately did not ending winning because his contentions were not supported by reliable sources and after several requests for reliable sources to back up his argument that Cruz is not eligible to be President, the debate ended. However, the debate did not end professionally or cleanly, Revmqo attempted to drag an admin into the situation and have my editing ended. He threatened to have me blocked for 3RR, which did not happen. He called me "crazy". He vandalized my talk page by continuously repeating his comments on my talk page--over and over again, after each time I took the comments down, he would put them back up. There was an anon IP that suddenly showed up to support everything Revmqo said. This anon IP had never edited Wikipedia before the Ted Cruz debate and since Revmqo lost the debate the anon IP has stopped ending Wikipedia again. It was as if the anon IP only wanted to just support Revmqo and then disappear!!!! Sort of like a sockpuppet, no? I put all of the non-contentious material back into the Cruz article but it took me days to find reliable sources for every and every detail. Information that did not require a reliable sources. Also, Revmqo removed all of the non-contentious information and he/she made absolutely zero, nada, zip, none, no effort to find these reliable sources that he/she was demanding that be put in the article. Revmqo could handled the situation in a better way. If there was a real concern about the information then he/she could have simply marked the information "citation needed" instead of ripping out all of the non-contentious material. Revmqo ripped out this non-contentious material because he lost the debate about Cruz's legal status to run for President--it was clearly retaliation for coming out on the short end of a straight forward debate about editing the Cruz article. Above all, it is really funny behavior because in other places Revmqo claims that he is a Methodist preacher!!!! I have been a member of the United Methodist Church since I was born 50 years ago and I can tell you that Revmqo's behavior does not match up with what UMC members expect from their preachers.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
A few of the edits where Revmqo essentially gutted most of the Ted Cruz article are located here:
It is a well established Wiki policy that you cannot use as a citation a website administered by the subject. Citing Ted Cruz's own campaign and personal website or FB page is not sufficient to substantiate an edit. Furthermore a simple review of the links above will show that the information using Cruz owned websites as proof most probably violates OR or POV with regard to the subject. One can also clearly see that ExclusiveAgent consistently exhibits ownership of the page, also in violation of Wiki policy. So much so, that one might assume there is a familial or contractual relationship between the editor and the subject. Revmqo (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no "familial or contractual relationship between" me, the editor, and Ted Cruz. That statement is a lie. Can you explain why a anon IP showed up to support all of your arguments and then completely disappeared from the face of the earth? Keep in mind that the anon IP editor who supported everything that you falsely claimed has never edited an actual article on Wikipedia. Can you explain why the anon IP editor has only edited talk pages in Wikipedia and only talk pages where you are supporting a false proposition and then after those discussions died down that anon IP editor suddenly disappeared as quickly as the anon IP editor came? That anon IP editor is a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet appeared on March 18th to support all of your arguments and to report me to an admin and then on March 20th the anon IP editor (75.111.78.220), [anon IP editor 75.111.78.220] disappeared into the ether where sockpuppet go when they are about to be caught.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Louisiana 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that you want to point out my 3RR violation, but you don't also point out User:Parkwells' violation of WP:PROVEIT. It is permissible for me to remove unsourced information from an article. If you had actually read the history rather than assuming 3RR you would see that I reverted an edit that included several unsourced sections and one sourced section. Since Parkwells asked me to add sources, and the WP policy is that the contributing editor (namely Parkwells) add them, I removed the comments but did so in separate reverts so that he could add them back as he provided sources. From my initial edit/revert summary it should be clear that I did not intend to stand in the way of new edits, only unsourced ones. Adding information to an article without any explanation or provable source is negligent, since most forget to add sources later....unless they are challenged on their edits. Revmqo (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
First, there's a huge difference. Violating 3RR gets you blocked and there is very little wiggle room and that's basically for removing BLP violations and vandalism, and definitely not for removing unsourced material. Secondly, it says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and you haven't yet been able to explain how that applies here. And thirdly, you seem to have missed "If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." You didn't do that. Not following policy in this case is not normally a blocking offense unless it is part of a pattern of tendentious editing or harassing another editor, and then the block would be for TE or hounding. Are you going to explain why you think the material you removed even falls under WP:PROVEIT? Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Daniel Inouye[edit]

Howdy- Thank you for the talk page message concerning Daniel Inouye. I made the edit more for the "was an American politician" part to appear at the beginning, which is the traditional way for politicians, and simply changed the other parts to fit that... Thank you for paying attention. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:John Wesley edits[edit]

I've stepped back and looked at my recent edits and I agree that the first paragraph that was in place does better summarise the rest of the article, (and the references). I'll leave it as it was I think. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable! (An all to RARE quality on WP these days!) We really have worked to build consensus on the article! Revmqo (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)