User talk:Thargor Orlando/ArchiveDecember2013

Anabolic steroid

Why did you remove the reference and what does non-RS mean?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anabolic_steroid&oldid=583731981. Please reply to my page. Regards. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Jackson Thoreau

Back in August you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at single-payer health care 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. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion be found here.

The Common Application

Thank you so much for taking the time to edit the The Common Application Wikipedia page. I noticed you have removed my previous edits several times because you considered it to be spam or promotional. Could you please clarify what I can do to make this more accurate? I'm working on a senior project to unbiasedly edit an assigned wikipedia page over the break, and the Common App was the one I received. Everything I've added, you've reverted. Will you tell me why? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prynb (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article's talk. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

M. Stanton Evans

I have no comment or objection to your content edits, I just wanted to ask why you removed all the links to Google Books. Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a commercial link at its core. Not sure why we should be linking to the page in that instance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books is a commercial link? It's also an incredibly useful link to content (and for verifying content) and is used in thousands of wikipedia articles. There's even a Wikipedia app for it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm shocked an app like that is allowed to exist. Yes, Google Books is a commercial link: in many cases, it offers links to books you can purchase through their ebook store outright, otherwise it directs you to Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Given the existence of that app, I guess I won't protest if you want to add them back in, but wow. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no denying that Google is a commercial outlet, but then JSTOR also charges for access to content as well and there's a ton of links to that resource. The usefulness of the free content far outweighs the fact that they might make a few bucks here and there. I would like to add them back in as I think they're quite useful and I've added maybe hundreds of such links myself. I'll be honest, I'm a little stunned that anyone would object to it. I don't want to edit war, though, if this opinion is being discussed somewhere I'm willing to join the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other discussion, I've just become a little hyper-aware of commercial linking as of late and I probably took too much care. As I said, you have no protest from me if you want to add them back, not a problem. I won't be touching any more of them for the time being until I have an opportunity to bring it up wherever that makes sense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Single-payer health care 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. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)