User talk:Fargo44

An invitation to the Teahouse!

Hello! Fargo44, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Medicine Hat (provincial electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wildrose (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) 10:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lake. 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) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fargo44. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fargo44. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Alberta provincial election, 2008/Calgary-Egmont have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 15 December 2017 (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 without adequate explanation, as you did at Calgary-Lougheed, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:6CC2:EA6E:E79:BF68 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Calgary-Lougheed. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:15A1:CAAE:632D:5E1E (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively, you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pierre Dufour (Quebec politician)

The article Pierre Dufour (Quebec politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fargo44. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 page edits/Cameron Boyce

Hi there,

I'd suggest to you to actually read the discussion that is taking place on the talk page for 2019 over whether or not Cameron Boyce is even significant enough to include on the 2019 death list - let alone have his photo up when there is limited space and immeasurably more notable and important figures (such as João Gilberto and Fernando de la Rúa) that deserve to be put up instead. So far you have ignored my tag of you on that specific discussion and have instead persisted in reverting back to your edit - which under the circumstances is bordering on vandalism.

Once again, I point you to this discussion - where you may state your case as freely as you like. I don't want to have to remind you again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019#Cameron_Boyce Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Thescrubbythug When I did state my case freely YOU ignored me.

What a ridiculous assertion. You continued your edits and didn't say a word to us until long after I posted this message here, and when you did finally "state your case" it came off as little more than a personal attack. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fargo44. You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and breaching the three-revert rule, per the above discussion. Please do not edit war again in future. Issues should be resolved through discussion on the talk page. — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to contact the person who I got into an edit war with but he/she refused to get back to me.

Yes, I see you made a comment at the 2019 talk page, but you did not wait for a response, you went on and made another revert. And this was after you had already been warned above. I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of the issue under dispute, but after this block expires, please continue to discuss on the talk page. Do not keep reverting. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru (talk) But, you only blocked me? You're personally signalling me out even though there was multiple people involved in this "Edit war". I simply added a picture of Cameron Boyce and Ross Perot because they both have an international name recognition that Fernando de la Rúa lacks as he's only predominately known in Argentina. I'm not suggesting you unblock me (even though that would show consistency on your part). I ask for you to either unblock me, block the others or explain the reason I reverted the content (that being the name recognition), and put back the pictures of Cameron Boyce and Ross Perot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargo44 (talk • contribs)

You were edit warring against multiple editors and consensus and were the only editor to break the brightline 3 revert rule. No unblock will occur if you continue to concentrate on the actions of others instead of articulating that you understand how your actions led to your block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ponyo But, I was NOT the only editor to break the brightline 3 revert rule. The fact that it was reverted proves that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargo44 (talk • contribs)

Really? Which other editor reverted more than three times today here? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ponyo Thescrubbythug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargo44 (talk • contribs)

No, they reverted three times. One, two, and three. There last two edits to the article were made back to back, which counts as a single edit. You would know this if you would read the first two paragraphs or WP:EW or WP:3RR which were linked prominently in both the warning provided by Black Kite as well as in Amakuru's block message. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, because you appear intent on wikilawyering here, you are responsible for the edits you make. You edit warred, you broke 3RR, and you were blocked. Nothing anyone else did negates the actions you took that led to your block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Amakuru I try reaching out to them and they ignore me. I said that the picture should be representative of someone who is internationally known, some person whose predominately known only in their country shouldn't be the person showcased in the side pictures.