User talk:Leoesb1032

Leoesb1032, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Leoesb1032! 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! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm DMacks. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Centralia, Pennsylvania 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: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Centralia, Pennsylvania, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely remove the "administrator" userbox from your userpage--if you aren't actually an admin, it's not allowed to claim that you are. DMacks (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just have that in case someone is bugging me about something, I look like I have more power than them.

I'm here to tell you that it is forbidden to do that. As an actual admin, I will revoke your edit privileges if you persist in lying to others in order to gain a perceived advantage. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a comment - users applying this userbox when they are not an admin has been discussed before at WP:ANI. In every case that I've seen, the community views it as misleading and disruptive to falsely claim admin status, and if the user refused to remove it, it has been removed by actual admins. Repeatedly restoring it has led to at least one user ID that I've seen being blocked.

I won't take any action myself at this time as I view myself as having a conflict in that I started the RfC regarding the article you created (although I may bring it up at WP:ANI if DMacks doesn't take action). I just wanted to comment on what I've seen happen in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania

In the RfC at Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania#RfC: should information about the fire be in its own article or remain here?, I noticed that you have voiced your opinion twice. While it's fine to reply to others in the discussion, having two top level bullet points looks like attempting to double your "vote". Aside from being misleading - you should be aware that these discussions are not a straight vote anyways - it depends on the person closing the discussion to weigh the merits of the arguments against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

In short, can you please either remove the second bullet, or merge the comment on it into the existing earlier bullet point? Thanks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for merging the bullets.

Regarding your post on my talk page: Wikipedia isn't quick on resolving RfCs, there's no rush. The default duration of RfCs is 30 days, although if it goes a week or more without additional participants, we can request a review and closure by a non-involved person. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]