User talk:Mrdthree

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



Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

-- srikeit | talk


Ah, I see what you were doing. Yep, I'll finish up the move as you intended, and change Freedom back to a redirect to the disambiguation page. Give me about 5 minutes and then let me know if it ended up where you wanted it. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do thanks alot.Mrdthree 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, I think. How does that look? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, well done sir!Mrdthree 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you so much for posting the image regarding the vote totals for the 1959 referendum on statehood in Hawaii. I have been looking for the exact numbers for a while, and couldn't find them before. Wonderful addition to the wikipedia! --JereKrischel 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:American Empire (term)[edit]

By continuing our conversation here, I don't know if I am like that unwelcome guest you didn't expect. But I wanted to continue our conversation. I apologize if my intrusion onto your talk page is offensive.

I am really intrigued by something you wrote, and I felt like Talk:American Empire (term) wasn't the proper forum to talk about it.

You wrote:

Advocacy is an inescapable part of scholarship and the motivation to work at Wikipedia, you want people to know about america the empire, marxists and chomsky want people to know america is an empire because it is (corporate) capitalist and I dont want young minds thinking that these are the only educated points of view.

This sentence in particular intrigues me: I dont want young minds thinking that these are the only educated points of view. Why? I can guess, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Signed:Travb 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I am an ex- (teenage)ayn randian who has downgraded to a more complex policy of libertarian, (anti-corporate) capitalist, with materialist-existentist sympathies but an otherwise anti-postmodern reactionary :). As for young minds, it is easy when you are young and are curious to end up trying to memorize pages of new jargon words because you believe once you do the fashionable philosophy of the day will make sense(e.g. post modernism) or even if you find a plain-spoken, overtly systematic but inconsistent set of ideas (e.g. ayn rand). Knowing both exist is best and even better are more alternatives plus some math for grounding (systematic and consistent very nice) or science (lots of jargon to memorize).Mrdthree 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand everything you are trying to say.
Being a libertarian and an anti-corporate capitalist, on its face, is an oxy-moron.
Is the information that we learned in American schools "pages of new jargon words because you believe once you do the fashionable philosophy"? In otherwords, is what we are taught in America detrimental propoganda? Travb 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No Fashionable philosophies when I was a lad were Sartre, existentialism, hegel, heidegger, when I was in undergrad French stuff Lacan,etc. I find continental philosophy dubious because of all the vocabulary.
  • I dont consider the propaganda we learned jargon, I think its the american context; every nation has a context and a story. I am less interested in social and political history than I am in math, science, philosophy, and the history of ideas. I think the only propaganda in these subjects involves diminishing the contributions of non-Europeans in history.Is it detrimental? Im not a minority and it hasnt hurt me. I guess I feel cheated by the lack of non-European history I was taught (esp. asian). If you are hinting at some alternative class histories I think there is some important censorship about old money and class; I was surprised when I discovered it in college. Its strange to meet americans who are priviledged, gifted, well bred and know it and believe this makes them members of a different social class (e.g. some harvard folks I met.. and not about political affiliation). I dont know how important they really are but I would guess they dont make up more than half the US power structure. It would be useful to learn what history says are their allegences but I guess when half the company board doesnt want the story told.... Otherwise I think the propaganda about class is reality: the US is a banal, vulgar, and mostly middle class country with more than half of the power structure and everyone else believing the american aristocracy are celebrities (flawed and mostly middle class in origin). This makes the american middle class distinct from the French Bourgeousie-- the aristocratic class the middle class american admires is not a hereditary class.
  • Anti-corporate capitalism; capitalism is private ownership of capital (basically all goods are property, ownable and transferrable by individuals). Chomsky points out corporations are creations of the state-- they are chartered by the state. THe charter shields the corporate officers from lawsuits by third parties (parties not directly involved in any transactions with the corporation, e.g. a neighbor). This immunity is the source of externalities such as pollution that damage 3rd parties and force the government to take on a pollution cleaning role. Without charters, the officers could be sued as individuals together with the company and the sme standards of negligence could lead to additional criminal prosecution. Basically the corporation is a creation of the state to promote industry (archetype was British Tea company I believe). I think it is time to revoke it or limit it to areas of extremely high need. Corporation are not the same as market capitalized businesses.
Kewl. In regards to American history, I often quote this passage from an interesting author.
You sound like you agree with Chomsky. I have studied corporations. Have you seen the movie The Corporation interesting premise, rather simplistic, as most movies have to be to entertain...
I am in the middle of writing a law school paper about Americas detrimental role in Colombia, so I better get back to it.Travb 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Its hard to escape the facts Chomsky lays out about corporations. I am pretty sure thats part of the reason CHomsky says the US is state capitalist. His analysis about their problems and economic impacts are pretty independent of his solutions so they are definitely worth listening to. I guess in a weird way as a libertarian I sympathize with his vision of a quasi-anarchic end state. I like to think libertarian socialism or capitalism reduce to whether you define freedom as maximally free from need or maximally free from force.
I saw the movie the corportaion its informative for about 20 minutes, made me realize the externality issue ties in. I mean if a farmer as an individual polluted a stream his neighbors would make sure he'd be arrested. Somehow the corporate officers escape this when a corportion does this. That said after those 20 minutes it paints with too broad a brush (I mean the average corner store is incorporated these days and to say all corporations are sociopathic bad citizens is a little freaky and needs a qualifier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talkcontribs)

I agree with you, on all points. I call Chomsky a gate-way author, a gate way to real historians and deeper understanding of the world around us.

Along the same lines, I posted a graph on Talk:Colombian Armed Conflict on February 2006.[1], it has nothing to do with the Colombian Armed Conflict, but ah well.

The graph I just cut and pasted to my user page, and can be found there.

Signed: Travb 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of research went in to this. I'll take a look at it.Mrdthree 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, no reasearch, just my mussings.Travb 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Current state of the article...[edit]

...with new and revised "Definition of Empire" section at the top. Is this acceptable to you? I don't think Miller and Thornton (who used to be quoted near the end) are making quite the same argument as you were, but they are criticizing the use of language and they're academic sources. Kalkin 15:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It was enough of a compromise that it wont agitate me for at least six months.Mrdthree 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I love Kalkin, while I am involved in meaningless,perpetual mental masterbation", he is actually building wikipedia articles.Travb 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I will archive the discussion. Please don't delete anything.Travb 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scholars who believe finance is imperialism[edit]

Sorry, whoever told you it ought to be a category was mistaken. Currently, it has lots of explanatory text and zero members, so a small list is probably much more appropriate for that kind of content. Categories are best for cases with large numbers of members, and where its clear if any particular item is a member of the category or not, such as Category:1953 films. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Categories for deletion notices from categories or remove other people's comments in Categories for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a category, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of a category, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Conscious 11:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism category[edit]

I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was decided the category should be deleted. You can challenge that decision but you cannot restart the category against consensus. It generally does not help to accuse others of hidden agendas. Añoranza 10:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I didnt accuse you of a hidden agenda; you are refreshingly open about your politics, e.g. on the delete the 'War on Terror' category page you said:
  • "Cateogries entitled with a propaganda term can never be made neutral."
two others said:
  • "Delete Bushite propaganda phrase."
I disagree, and I think wikipedia loses something by eliminating the documentation of Bush administration policies. The 'War on Terror' is a policy of the Bush administration. It has had consequences ranging from two wars to domestic surveillance. Rather than erase any mention of it, document it. As a category, it can be used to identify the rationale, actors and actions of the bush administration. It is a proper subcategory of category:Foreign relations of the United States, and it is useful for it to have its own category.

Mrdthree 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not reveal anything to state that a propaganda term is a propaganda term, and I never use terms like "Bushite". Of course it has to be documented, but you cannot document something neutrally taking up propaganda terms. And if you think you have a point here take it to where it belongs, I am not the one to decide whether to restart a deleted category. Añoranza 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Some beat me to it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback...[edit]

regarding the change I made to the "political view" section on the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article.  :-) Lawyer2b 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respect NPOV ("Republic" article)[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Republic. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Francis Schonken 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake , my apologies, I misunderstood the first sentence. Mrdthree 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaky integrator[edit]

Hello. You might have noticed that some clean-up tags have been placed on leaky integrator, an article that you wrote. In particular, I'd like to ask you to add a reference. Furthermore, please explain the variables in the equation. Are A and C numbers or matrices? Do they depend on t? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War & Nescio[edit]

He moved your vote, well actually he renamed where you put it to be the same thing as the other one with the "regardless of whether it is supported by objective and verifiable evidence" tag attached. So aparently now it makes it look like you are saying your vote has no factual support and is not even objectionable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


After some people archived the page the links changed, apparently I made a mistake correcting that. As to my stalker Zero who is trying to create animosity, I hope you understand I only wanted to prevent any misunderstanding so I removed the extra header. In no way did I mean to nisrepresent your comment. However, when people start rewriting the RFC (Zero is very good in that), changing what the RFC is about, it only adds to the lack of consensus. I will no longer take part in the debate since several editors delete comment, misrepresent comments and claim consensus when there clearly is none. Goodday and fruitful editing. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop adressing me, stop talking about me, why is this so complicated for you? Stop following my edits around. I am done dealing with you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi -- I reverted some vandalism on Fidel Castro and accidentally removed your NPOV tag there as a result. This was unintentional; please re-add as you wish -- I was removing the vandalism, not your note. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Mike Christie 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks for the Notice.Mrdthree 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


User:Ilyag is up to old tricks trying to remove "journalist" tag on Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page. You've reverted these edits before. If you have the time, please keep an eye on this and talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbeatty (talkcontribs)

I am super-duper busy but I will give my two bits to it. Mrdthree 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party[edit]

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism page[edit]

This page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editror can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war. I am going to post this message on the discussion page of the redirect to explain what happened.--Cberlet 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is turning a page into a redirect not a deletion? Mrdthree 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What it would take for the US not to be an empire[edit]

Hello Mrdthree. On the American Empire talk page, you said: FOr advocates of american empire I am curious what the defining properties of american empire are and what properties would be need to be taken away for america not to be an empire. Mrdthree 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For example how many of the items below would wipe the slate clean? (A) have all overseas U.S. territories vote for independence or statehood; (B) not give money to foreign governments; (C) Not own military bases overseas; (D) Not own nuclear weapons; (E) Not try to negotiate 'free trade' treaties with other countries; (F) Cease broadcasts such as the voice of america or other propaganda aimed at influencing foreign governments; (G) apologize for past act of imperialism; (H) Establish Tribunal to determine damages from past acts of imperialism and establish equivalent benefits or reparations; (H).... Mrdthree 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an opponent, not an advocate, of US empire, but I believe it exists, which I imagine is what you meant. For my part, I'd say A, B*, C, E**, and G. A massive decrease in the military budget would probably also be a necessary corrollary. D would be good but is not necessary or sufficient for ending empire. H would be morally required but again is not necessary for ending empire.
*Cease giving military or political aid to authoritarian or oppressive regimes; humanitarian aid would be fine, and if A, C, E, and G were carried out I might even believe "democracy promotion" meant what it said.
**Not define "free" as "good for U.S. business" and use it as an excuse to end labor, environmental, and hot-capital protections. Trade treaties in the abstract are fine.
Of course, an advanced, economically dominant capitalist nation which is not imperialistic is a creature of Bizarro World. International political-military competition follows from international economic competition plus business/money-dominated national politics, ie from capitalism. If all these things happened without forceful overthrow of US power, either by domestic revolution or by the rise of superior rival imperialism(s), I would have to change a lot more opinions than just that the US is an empire.Kalkin 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll call that a vote for ACGI with a qualified B,E Mrdthree 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You asked on the American Empire page whether 'imperialism'/'empire' is a strictly delimited concept or a family resemblance one. In general terms, 'imperialism' is certainly not a strictly delimited concept, because it is contested; as the article lays out, there are widely varying theories on what it is. As I interpret the concept, from a Leninist perspective, it is a term describing the behavior of all capable states in an epoch of capitalism, when the growth and consolidation of capital reaches a high enough point in some states to enable economic competition to be extended to the political-military realm. Therefore while, again from my perspective, you can lay out fairly specific conditions under which imperialism will be present, characterizing specific actions as imperialistic is a much less precise matter. And if you try to interpret the concept as used by Marxists without a Marxist framework, confusion is very likely.
Lenin lays out the basics in a classic pamphlet, which still applies with the caveat that he is now generally acknowledged to have been mistaken in attributing imperialism exclusively to the export of capital and not ordinary commodities. Kalkin 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasting time avoiding homework and waiting for friends to arrive with alcohol... Kalkin 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh.. wise choice... alcohol.Mrdthree 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi -

You asked (and then changed you mind about asking) whether something could ever be more important than cricket. The answer is "of course", of course.

You only have to look at, for example, Category:Cricket_terminology for dozens of terms that are disambiguated, just like Bill O'Reilly. Another example: look at the hundreds of people listed at List of English Test cricketers, where many are "X (cricketer)" with either a disambiguation page at "X" or some other person as the primary article. The first is Frank Penn, #27, with disambiguation between Frank Penn (cricketer) and Frank Penn (footballer); the next, Charles Leslie, finds a rather obscure Irish theologian taking the primary page over Charles Leslie (cricketer).

I'm sorry we disagree, but I really had not heard of the American commentator before this debate (whereas I was well aware of the Australian cricketer). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should go play some cricket. Mrdthree 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting that image[edit]

It seems that you are convinced that yours is the only opinion that counts when it comes to which picture is going to be used on the Anti-Americanism page; there are more of us who feel that using a picture which is not linked to a commercial entity is more appropriate. I am asking that an admin get involved as I think that what you are continually doing is vandalism, or at least gaming the system. Duke53 | Talk 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The image evokes an emotional response from me. The book cover does not. I dont see why I should have to be agitated everytime I go to the page. Plus by majority you mean you and Frogsprog[3]. I would be happy to link you to Frogsprogs agenda pushing [4][5] and insulting comments[6][7][8]. I imagine these are comments you would want to disassociate yourself from. Mrdthree 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I never said 'majority'; there have been others who reverted the image. You seem to be the only one who keeps reverting to it. Duke53 | Talk 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Duke53 | Talk 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, you are correct. You said 'many of us' when refering to Frogsprog and yourself[9].The rrr is for one day. Thankyou for the notice though Mrdthree
(The 3RR rule is for a 24 hour period) :Mrdthree , you have been reported for violation of the 3RR rule. FWIW, both pictures elicit exactly the same response from me. You seem to want to advertise someone's book on that page. I never said that we were in the majority, but rather that you were in the minority ... don't ever put words in my mouth again.Duke53 | Talk 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking I dont think you ever until now claimed I wa in the minority. I never meant to misuse your words. It was corrected within minutes after you pointed out that I should re-examine what you said: I immediately changed it from majority to many when I discovered my error and I provided the appropriate reference. I will endeavor never to attribute any words to you that you have not spoken. I apologize for the mistake, those I do attribute to you from now on willbe given the appropriate citation. However I think it is a reasonable inference to claim that you are now claiming the majority by stating I am in the minority. SO I will definitely point out that you made the inverse claim if I am called toaccount for my mistatement. Mrdthree 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As forthe 3 revert rule it was mistake I thought the rule was no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. I will make note now that you have changed the rules.Mrdthree 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting warnings?[edit]

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. Duke53 | Talk 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it was a third party who deleted the warnings, but can't find a template for that category. Why would somebody else edit this page? Duke53 | Talk 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?[edit]

Hi Mrdthree. Yes, I am an administrator (see the full list of administrators). I didn't realise the move had been listed at WP:RM but I've now removed it from the backlog listing there. The talk page is not formally 'protected' from editing, but we've generally found that it's wise to ensure that discussion of things like moves and deletions remains untampered with after the event. You can always continue discussion of the issue on a new section on the talk page. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD[edit]

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stochastic Oscillator[edit]

Hi, The link works for me - you should be able to see it in HTML at [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleclech (talkcontribs) 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


Please stop canvassing for people to contribute to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Banners and buttons and see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Discussions for deletion are about consensus, not a vote. By canvassing, you are polluting the discussion and making attempts at consensus impossible. --Durin 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A limited canvassing informs, not pollutes. Its a topic with consequences to parties besides you and I and they should be informed.Mrdthree 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence![edit]

thanks for reverting the POV deletions on overseas expansion of usa article, there is a certain user who is devoted to deleting any objective criticism of the USA government or of capitalism and they unfortunately spend so much time on WP that it takes an army of diligent sensible normal people (who cant spend their entire waking life on WP) to keep such users from deleting valuable information and forcing their hard-right ideology on any visitor looking for objective information.

anyhow thanks please help us keep this individual under control by watching their "contributions page" regularely and reverting any POV damage they cause thanks so much


Esmehwp 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wikipedia-share.png)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia-share.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Your last two edits on the Reason article are interesting, but might draw some reverting which might eventually lead to the article getting worse. Indeed the back and forth of no-entirely convincing arguments has not been a good thing for the article. I don't think anyone is particularly happy that the article is as it should be, BUT you've walked over a few points of view without much justifying comment. Perhaps your thinking might lead to further improvement though - it just isn't easy to see. May I ask you to expand upon your justifications for those edits on the article's talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I have tagged File:Hashimibookthumb.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Radiant chains (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:William Levitt TIME cover.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:William Levitt TIME cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster[edit]

Please stop using MW as a source for broad social assumptions about an entire country. It's one dictionray. A dictionary proves only what the publisher of that dictionary believes the word to mean. Regardless of whether the statement is right or not, that source doesn't prove it. - BalthCat (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not. I believe you dislike it for what it says rather than what it is. You cannot sincerely believe that prior to the last 20-30 years any american would consider the common meaning of marriage to include same sex unions. If you do believe that you are a revisionist. Perhaps you should talk to your parents more. MW was an honest enterprise by all accounts whose efforts were to document the common meanings of words. I use MW because like the Encyclopedia Britannica of that era, most consider it a reference par excellence whose copyright has fortunately expored. I am sure any dictionary would be similarly as explicit. Mrdthree (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. The point is that you need a source that says it is the common definition, not a dictionary. The source explicitly has to say "EVERYONE SAYS THIS", a dictionary doesn't do that, so it is not an appropriate source. That's the whole point! MW is not a reliable source for anything except as an example of dictionary definitions. So please stop using it, because it's NOT a good source for broad statements about a society, even if the statement is correct. Try assuming I meant what I said, and that the source is crap, rather than assuming I have a problem with the content. I don't care what the definition says. - BalthCat (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You lack a good grasp of what dictionaries are. Mrdthree (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:RS. - BalthCat (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I grant it could be considered a tertiary source. Perhaps you should start a discussion at as to whether the dictionary is a reliable source. Mrdthree (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The citation does not support what you've attached it to. The claim that it uses "traditional marriage" is pointless on a sentence that makes no claim about the phrase "traditional marriage". What that sentence needs for support is something showing that TMM members use the prior understanding as an argument for their position. Your use of Websters has not found support from anyone else in the discussion, and has been criticized not only by myself, but by Balthcat, by Lionelt, and by Dr. Enh. It has found no support. Please stop reintroducing it. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I find myself inclined to believe your interest in excluding the text is partisan. How do you feel about these issues? Perhaps what concerns you is the possibility of balance in the analysis? Mrdthree (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Contract (legal)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Contract (legal), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Contract. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


The expectations of sexual limitations arises from the relationship and not necessarily from the marriage. If a couple wants to get married say apparently for economic reasons, then the kinship is nevertheless established though presumably to economical ends. If a couple wants to get married but doesnt want the kinship, then they are confused and do not really want to get married. But if they do get married then the kinship is established whether they like or not, that is, they automatically get rights and responsibilities, say rights of Next of Kin related to decisions over medical care in case of partner incapacitation, property inheritance, child custody, etc. again whether they like it or not the kinship is established by law. What is never established is sexual rights except in a few theocracies. Neither are expectations of sexual limitation because that is a personal decision established by the relationship not by law, and not necessarily from the marriage. Or are you saying an unmarried couple cannot expect sexual limitation since it can only come with marriage so if one partner cheats, the relationship must continue after all marriage is what provides the expected sexual limitation, or are you saying a married couple may divorce but still have sexual relations though never with sexual limitations since after all the only thing that limited their sexual instinct outside their mutual relationship was the marriage itself, not their love and respect for each other? and by the way the death imposition. This is imposed by the very same exceptional theocracies that approve of polygamous marriages. Yet your definition declares universal the exceptional. Isn't that ironic? gorillasapiens (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, this is silly. If you want to construct hypotheticals and discuss how the law applies to them, do it on your own page or the discussion page of the article.Mrdthree (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to use wikipedia?[edit]

Just curious, because I don't understand your logic. You simply go into a discussion, recommend something, no one agrees with it but then change it what's the point of entering a discussion? Also, why do you just remove things like "it's suppose to be removed" without discussion? I know you love Jesus and excluding things to make Christianity "right" is your ultimate goal but like the Bible says, the truth will set you free. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Historyguy1965, I am not a christian nor am I religious, or trying to establish christian principles but if you want to have a discussion about what I think about religion, I'd be happy to-- as long as you can explain your perspective to me as well. I am vaguely diestic. I believe in traditionalist institutions. I could go into more detail but I am curious, are you an atheist? Mrdthree (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I believed in treating people fairly. I know you love editing the marriage article to your bias each and every time but for once try to be empathetic about the truth. I know you think gay people are the devil and that Christianity is the truth but opening your mind will create a whole new world of possibilities -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this a conversation or some bizarre series of accusations that I have to deny? I dont think gay people are the devil. I believe that homosexuals can help to make a healthy society. I think in some cases it is noble for gays to choose to be parents. That said, I believe that heterosexual couple is a stronger block upon which to build a healthy society and and culture. A heterosexual couples can role model an iterative value system in a simple, natural and robust way (i.e. a man-woman-children cultural unit iterates to transmit cultural values). I admire Camille Paglia on many issues and I think whe would think similarly on these issues. As a Western conservative I am concerned about the degradation of cultural values. So those are my biases. Why do you hate religious people and yet want marriage to continue? Mrdthree (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of accusations, who said I hated religious people? All I'm saying is your bias is excruciatingly prevalent in your edits. You do realize that marriage did not originate with religion, right? And speaking of "better parents", you do realize that literally every psychological organization finds no difference between heterosexual and homosexual households, right? Maybe we should include that in the marriage article now that I think about it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well there is alot of bias from my point of view as well. It took me two weeks of arguing with you and other members of the left-leaning? marriage cabal to get the word adultery mentioned in the Marriage article. To me the notion of sexual limitation in marriage is essential and commonsensical, backed up by any survey of historical or sociological data. So what are your beliefs? Are you an athiest? why the rigorous battle against 'adultery'? Mrdthree (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, you asked me why I hated religious people and yet wanted marriage to continue, are you insinuating that marriage originated with religion? Also, I'm not left-leaning, I'm loving this conversation because I am undoubtedly reiterating my previous assumptions about yourself. Nonetheless this is pointless, just don't lie on the articles you edit, I don't think Jesus would appreciate it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If I answer this question, will you summon the courage to answer one of mine? (1) I do beleive that marriage began with religion, or at least something very primitive and totemistic; (2) I agree there is nothing wrong with gay parents in themselves; however, two parent, married, non-divorced families are best for children [11] and these occur (sadly) more frequently among heterosexuals. There I have been brave? I have said all kinds of politically incorrect things--maybe you could share some of your thoughts?Mrdthree (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
What you believe and what is are unfortunately two different things. You do realize that marriage predates Christianity, Judaism, and Islam right? And that link is comical, was that a scientifically studied and peer reviewed article? Who else has justified the claim? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well Historyguy1965 you have much reading to do yet. There are in fact religions other than the three Abrahamic ones. Some very ancient. If you dont like nonfiction, you can always start exploring early religions in historical novels like The Clan of the Cave Bear. As for the two parent home study, you are yet again blind-sided by the obvious (I'll put more here [12],[13],[14],). What political and social biases do you have? Mrdthree (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Answer a question and I will restore your posts, otherwise we are done.Mrdthree (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the the general notability guideline, which says a subject needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  13:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Durova306 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop leaving comments on my user page. If you wish to communicate with me, please comment on my talk page. As for "false accusations", I made none. You removed an AFD tag from an article which is undergoing AFD. The change of name does not affect the AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I left the comment on your user page by mistake. Sorry. The article you created was not undergoing deletion. The AfD was moved to a different site. The original article you started is open for development. Mrdthree (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mrdthree. You have new messages at Rettetast's talk page.
Message added 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rettetast (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


The justification is this - PD-USGov is for works by the FEDERAL (i.e. national) government. The file Hawaiivotesinset.JPG is not a work of the Federal government. It is the work of a state government, and the only license that fits that criteria is the one I put on there, which is used for all works by state governments. The other option was to remove the PD-USGov license, which is incorrect, and put on a "no license" template, which I did not want to do, as I knew what the proper license was. As far as the additional template saying it will be deleted, I did not put that on there.--Monkeybait (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of To me it seems to say official documents are not copyrightable? Mrdthree (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My interpretation of the license is exactly what it says on the license - "This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision" Pretty unequivocal.--Monkeybait (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No I mean this part:Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01[15] Paragraph 3.6 at 14 February 2006)
I would say that laws, petitions etc. at the state level are public domain...however, wikipedia has not established a specific license for that. I would argue that the image in question is PD, but not eligible for PD-USGov.--Monkeybait (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I added that part to my post at to see what the consensus is. In the mean time I would like to change the setting to PD-ineligible as per the second opinon. Mrdthree (talk)
I have no qualms with that. My primary concern is diffusion of the PD-USGov category--Monkeybait (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slut[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Slut. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of War of terror[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is War of terror. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of terror. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss changes at Libertarianism[edit]

Given I reverted you because of alleged WP:OR of putting your own opinions before references that did not support them and brought this up at talk, I think you should discuss issues at talk before re-establishing your edits. I am not supporting the previous edit, but will revert back to a less controversial version. Please edit cooperatively. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kitco Metals[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Kitco Metals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drdisque (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitco. References do not show notability.[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kitco Metals, Inc.[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Kitco Metals, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Dmol (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

From my reading, the standard of importance is lower than the standard of notability. But in either case, isnt an informational webpage with a worldwide traffic ranking of 2000 notable? Isnt it notable if a business magazine awards the webpage a 'best of the web' award? Isnt it notable for simply being a large gold bullion retailer? Mrdthree (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Kitco Metals page[edit]

Hi Mrdthree. Although it may have not been your intent, your article, "Editing Kitco Metals, Inc.", read like an advertisement. Here on Wikipedia, we have a policy in which advertising/spam is speedy deleted per deletion criterion G11. Please note that articles for deletion are judged on their own merit, not in comparison to other articles. You are certainly welcome to resubmit the article, but please revise the text so that it complies with the policies and guidelines noted at WP:ADS, WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:POV, and WP:GNG; otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again. Once you have resubmitted your article, you may find WP:RFF helpful; the WP:RFF noticeboard has many editors who are more than willing to give you constructive criticism on your article and/or help edit your article. FASTILY (TALK) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the role of the the {hang on} tag? When the article was tagged for speedy deletion, I posted the tag to contest the speedy deletion request, started a new topic in the discussion section (Oppose speedy deletion). When does the hang on tag create an obligation on your part to discuss prior to speedy deletion? Wwhat is the purpose of having this tag? Mrdthree (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Information.svg Hey there Mrdthree, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Mrdthree/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


The FRC shooting incident is already mentioned in this article. There has been exhaustive discussion about this on the talk page already, but feel free to open a new section. Though you won't have anyone thanking you for it. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The mention makes no sense-- it is totally unclear how the SPLC is even topical the way it is written

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Southern Poverty Law Center‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the topic was discussed on the edit page and was resolved. the other Author refuses to discuss his stance, when it is contrary to the evidence. The article states there are 926 hate groups it then lists all 926, After that it lists an addition 109 or so patriot groups. These are in addition to the hate groups and make up a total of some 1000+ groups. On the edit page we determined and it was argued by people other than myself that patriot groups are not classified as hate groups. I acknowledged their argument and made appropriate changes. Mrdthree (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You've reverted three different editors at this point. Please stop before you violate 3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Check the edits, they are on very different topics. The last one was about eliminating patriot groups from teh list of hate groups, which I think is resolved. The previous one was about linking the words '2012 shooting' to the webpage about the 2012 shooting at the family research council. Both are not objectionable additions to the article. Mrdthree (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Or at least they track the evolution of the edit. Initially I wanted separate mention of patriot groups. But then in discussion it was determined that patriot groups are not actually listed as hate groups. Mrdthree (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Any kind of "revert" counts toward the bright line limit of no more than three reverts allowed in a 24-hour period. The four reverts could all be at different parts of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well now...they could revert 5 separate pieces of information in one edit. That doesn't cross the 3RR. Or they could make 5 separate edits that revert 5 separate pieces of information consecutively without anyone else editing between their edits and would not cross 3RR.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern Poverty Law Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order (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) 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DRN advice[edit]

I am copy pasting my suggestions and comments from your DRN filing as I am closing it for lack of participation. The only editor listed that discussed the issue was you and the filing has remained open for far too long. I am sorry if this is upsetting or aggrivating in any way.

From the DRN request:

Wait please Mrdthree and Theodore!. I think that should be rethought. Per WP:INTDABLINK: "With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for." Now, there are some exceptions but none that allow links in the body of the article to a specific word as it won't clarify anything really, as I believe is the concern of the OP (who, by the way is the only particpant from the list of involved editors). You'll simply get an automated message delivered to your talk page and is likely to be reverted and would be considered a policy/guideline based revert and would probably be considered edit warring if you were to try and keep placing it back in. I advise strongly against linking to the disambiguation page.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer here is actually pretty simple, and one I highly suggest. One, if the term is the one which consensus holds is right for the article and you still feel a link is needed here (and i happen to strongly agree one is needed) then simply add whatever page you feel is best suited to define the usage here. Here is just an example (although it could work) It would be linked in the following manner: [[Sedition#United States#Civilian|antigovernment]], which would then just appear as this: antigovernment. There is of course the very good possibility that an actual article may need to be created boldly. That should be a lot of fun to create I think. This, of course may need to be discussed but could also be boldly added as advice from DRN, but remember we have no authority or special powers. If reverted discuss what page should be linked, if at any at all, but I believe this is something that truly needs a link.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Any change to Southern Poverty Law Center that isnt obviously laudatory (even adding a hyperlink to an existing word as was my last edit) requires at least a week of argument followed by some form of arbitration. Its a highly polarized page and making the kind of change you suggest is a months work, if at all possible (which I doubt since it would frame the SPLC as accusing people of sedition, which would make it seem like the SPLC's Patriot Menace are readily comparable to McCarthy's Red Scare). I dont like to erase my talk page history so you are welcome to peruse the past battles I have had on that page. Mrdthree (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It is a change that can be made with little fanfare. Mrdthree (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring on Human sexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 10:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mrdthree (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I did not revert the author 3 times. I altered the lead sentence of the article after reading the source [16] that was cited for the sentence[17]. After updating the lead sentence I posted discussion [18]. user:Flyer22 reverted my work once without discussion [19]. He wrongly stated my change was not supported by the reference. I undid his change and told him to reread the reference and to post discussion [20]. User:Flyer22 said in discussion no need to mention males or females [21] and reverted my change [22]. I gave him a WP:3RR warning on his page [23] and went to the discussion section to talk [24]. I asked him, with an open mind, why he thinks the article on Human Sexuality should not mention the words male, female, man or woman in the opening paragraph [25]. He did not respond. Since he refused to discuss, I undid his reversion [26]. That was 2 reversions. I never received a WP:3RR warning. Which is usually the polite thing to do. Mrdthree (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for WP:3RR, you are blocked for edit warring. Since you warned someone else for the same thing, you were clearly aware of the policy. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

this is the first time I have heard of being blocked for edit warring that does not violate 3RR. Typically what is done is a warning. When was the last time you blocked someone for edit warring in absence of 3RR? Mrdthree (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I rarely block anyone for edit warring; however, I quite often process unblock requests from people who think they have a right to three reverts and are surprised to find themselves blocked for edit warring. WP:3RR is explicit: The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
COMMENTARY-- User: Flyer22 WAS A WIKIPEDIA BUREAUCRATIC BULLY WHO IS NOW BLOCKED [27] (also see below) and currently goes by User:Flyer22 Reborn
COMMENTARY-- I had not edited in a couple years and the 3RR rules changed in that time.Mrdthree (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Mrdthree, what in the world are you talking about? Why are you pinging me to this section from two years ago, to make false comments like "WAS A WIKIPEDIA BUREAUCRATIC BULLY WHO IS NOW BLOCKED"? That is false. You clearly are not over the block (even after Jpgordon explained things) or our interaction (despite having recently appeared to be), but I am not interested in revisiting your antics in that case, especially since I was wrongly blocked at that time by an administrator who is now no longer an administrator. Yes, in that discussion you linked to, I cited The ed17 as the one who unblocked me. I was unblocked because it was an unjustified block. NeilN was the main editor arguing in my favor at that time. And I have not been blocked since. Do move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
And as I try to do when this comes up, I'll confirm again that Flyer is correct. I unblocked Flyer because it was completely unjustified. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Please provide links to the discussion of the unblocking and reasons for changing of the user alias.Mrdthree (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Human sexuality[edit]

Just a suggestion, but since I saw you say elsewhere you are in biology, you should read Intersex, for starters. Sexuality is not neatly divided up into either male OR female, there is much more variation than that. It might be a minority of the population, but it still must be acknowledged. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

yeah I discussed in article talk page under definition. It deserves a place in the opening section. Mrdthree (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Cant make any such change; unfortunately the editors at human sexuality are so agenda driven they will fight the mention of the words male or female anywhere in the opening paragraphs. Somehow for them sexuality exists apart from sex. They are so single minded on gender roles it's dissonant for them when someone states obvious biological facts Mrdthree (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though I don't directly mention you, I still should have informed you. I apologize for the oversight. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Measure1.gif listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Measure1.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The other user reverted twice in less than 12 hours-- I request he be flagged for edit warring or you revert your warning; he is not participating in further discussion and has used you for a third revert rather than discuss.Mrdthree (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. User: MShabazz regularly hurls personal attacks [28] [29] [30],[31](and see post below)
  2. User: MShabazz is edit warring against an overwhelming majority on this topic List of Islamist terrorist attacks Mrdthree (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doxycycline. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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.

Please discuss here: Talk:Doxycycline#Mitochondria Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. User:Jytdog has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for harrassment.[32]

--Mrdthree (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a moron[edit]

Please read the sock puppetry policy more carefully, especially the section titled "Legitimate uses". I am not "coming perilously close to sock puppetry"; I am operating an alternative account within policy. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for personal attacks. Whether it is calling me a liar [33] or moron [34] [35], or calling other people morons [36]. That said I prefer User:Malik Shabazz over your sockpuppet alternative account User:MShabazz you seem to reserve it for insults.--Mrdthree (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mrdthree. 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)