User talk:Flyte35/2014

College Tuition in the United States[edit]

See the 2013 discussion about this topic.

Please come over to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Inflationary_effects_lacking_in_Loan_Forgiveness_discussion_requested_by_Flyte35 to discuss the recent edit war, as it is regarding the same type of edit as was done just now.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am consolidating discussion of 2 different Wikipedia pages to the talk page of one of them (for simplicity), simply because they involve the same issue; there was an edit was between myself and 1 editor over on the College Tuition in the United States page, and then over on the Higher Ed bubble page, myself and 2 other editors edit-warred. As you are 1 of the 3 editors, I'm acting in good faith and notifying you of the consolidated discussion -even though it will drastically increase the odds that the 3 of you can 'gang up' on me. Note: I did not have to notify you of the other edit war, but I did -even knowing I may get ganged up on by 3 registered editors. Please know that when you remove a truthful, on-topic edit that is *properly sourced*, then it pushes other editors like myself to not want to become registered. So, your actions here are counterproductive, but I will assume good faith: the link in question is right above.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution: My edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Carlucci[edit]

Okay, let's talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelj6763 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Talk:David_Carlucci. There are discussions started there.Flyte35 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flyte35 moved the discussion to the talk page.

Resolution: Discussed in talk. Most of my proposed edits retained. Flyte35 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reagan[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Michael_Reagan#Original_research Flyte35 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

trying to cover a convicted criminal and his relationship with michael reagan. How much are you getting paid to manage his reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.190.123 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, specially, do you want to change? Flyte35 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war at the Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès page. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

Actually no, I've revered twice. You're reverted three times. Anonymous editor, the wiki rule for Biographies of living persons states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That's what I was doing. But I did explain my reasoning in the comments section. You should participate there, and stop adding unsourced material. Flyte35 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. The Monagesque laws have been posted and, regardless of your explanations, you still cannot revert more than three times. That rule is also sourced and easy for to read up on.174.6.0.22 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès#Titles and styles (new section). Flyte35 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Absolute final warning on the Princess Gabriella page. You are now in violation of the 3RR rule AND ignoring consensus.174.6.0.22 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't revered anything on that page since the last time you contacted me. Flyte35 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you are correct. I had mistaken a different edit for a revert.174.6.0.22 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. See WP:NOT3RR. "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is not counted as revert for the purposes of 3RR. Surtsicna (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]