User talk:GregJackP

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

Nomination of Robert H. Richards IV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert H. Richards IV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert H. Richards IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

MOSLAW

I've decided not to go forward with proposing this edit, mainly because after looking at the What links here? for article talk pages to MOSLAW I see that it's almost never cited for the proposition I was trying to clarify. In fact, I could only find one instance of that and, well, you did it. (And as such was an error only an Aggie would make — to which let me add, as a further friendly jab by yer' friendly neighborhood Tea Sip: "Hook 'em.") As such, I've come to think that my proposal is a solution looking for a problem and was to some extent, rule creep. All collegiate posturing aside, it would appear that you and I have a lot in common and I look forward to working with you in the future. (Have you ever considered doing content dispute resolution? I work at 3O, DRN, and am a member of the Mediation Committee and you have the kind of background which might suit you for that kind of work.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, but I am really not the guy you want at 3O or DRM. I've been Arbcom sitebanned and topic banned, plus I've retired in a snit a couple of times. I can be, at times, rather blunt and well, less than tactful. I do look forward to working with you though, and agree that we have a lot in common. (PS, the collegiate posturing may be worse than you think, I'm also a Sooner in addition to being a grad of Aggie Law, :) ). GregJackP Boomer! 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have friends who are Aggies and others who are Sooners, but you may be my first who is both. Sheesh. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing you around the Wiki. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I have degrees from both Montana State University and the University of Montana - which is probably why I never attend ballgames for the cross state rivalry! Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A food award

	All-American meal
	To fuel your continued editing of Wikipedia, and to thank you for honorably serving in uniform the United States, I hereby present to you this meal. Enjoy! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

Your recent editing history at Bad Elk v. 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.
Ditto on Plummer v. State. Please discuss the policy violation issues on Talk. We can add the content back if and when the sourcing is worked out Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)