Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 3 October 2014

March 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lee Zeldin, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Misplaced Pages articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lee Zeldin was changed by BlueboyLI (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.91327 on 2011-03-22T07:41:45+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WGBB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WALK (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) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Tim Bishop, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Arbor8 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

Rather than continually reverting my edits or re-adding disputed material, I'd encourage you to please take part in the discussion on the talk page at Lee Zeldin so that we can reach consensus. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014

I have not re-added any disputed material. I'm only reverting information that you've deleted ie bill numbers that Zeldin either sponsored or voted on.

I've deleted the saltwater fishing because there is no good reference. The vote was in 2011, this link you provided as source http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle-1.812042/1st-c-d-demos-airs-rudy-tv-ad-as-zeldin-goes-on-radio-1.7451044?qr=1 is from 2014 & is about Demos ads. It has nothing to do with the referenced bill.

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Zeldin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Wizard of Oz and DCCC (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) 08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Lee Zeldin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.CFredkin (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please engage in the discussion at Talk:Lee Zeldin so that we can reach consensus. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Zeldin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wizard of Oz. 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) 09:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tim Bishop

There is an active conversation on the Tim Bishop talk page about how best to characterize CREW's identification of him as one of the Top 10 Most Corrupt congressmen, as well as the status and meaning of the investigation by the House Ethics Committee. User:ABarnes94 has asked you both on the Bishop talk page and in an edit summary to discuss the changes on the Bishop talk page prior to reverting. However, it looks like you are are choosing not to engage on the talk page and rather, to simply revert. I'm writing this message here to find out if it was an oversight on your part to engage in the requested talk page dialogue, or whether you have decided to just ignore that request, or some other possibility. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to make sure you saw this. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added this note to the Tim Bishop talk page. "BlueboyLI, without engaging in a discussion here, after a number of requests from other editors to talk things over in this location, has changed the text back to what I believe to be a factually inaccurate version. Specifically, BlueboyLI has added the sentence, "However, a two-year-old complaint filed by a political opponent against Bishop to The Office of Congressional Ethics, remains under review by the United States House Committee on Ethics." I believe this to be factually inaccurate. The House Committee on Ethics is not reviewing the Creighton complaint. They are reviewing the OCE's report. As a stylistic matter, it goes against WP's Manual of Style "Relative Time References" to use phrases such as "two-year-old". I'm adding a note to BlueboyLI's talk page about this note, where I am encouraging him to participate in a dialogue here on this article's talk page about these issues." In the absence of any conversation or dialogue from you, it's not clear to me what your thinking is on the matters under discussion. I hope you'll change that, perhaps by providing an argument as to why you think what you are saying is factually accurate. That would be the appropriate move to make at this juncture. Champaign Supernova (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)