User talk:DevilInPgh

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DevilInPgh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Safiel (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Tikun Olam (blog). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Tikun Olam (blog) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DevilInPgh. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
Message added 07:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whoops, wrong setting last time I tried to notify you. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tikun Olam (blog) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I thought I had edited in a way that would have been acceptable, but Malik Shabazz apparently doesn't get that the press isn't going to report on this unless someone gets killed because of Silverstein. I want WP:dispute resolution or WP:ANI.DevilInPgh (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at WP:Third opinion. And I better get some good advice, because I know all about how the Wikipedia community tries to screw pro-Israel editors in favor of pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel editors. DevilInPgh (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, anything related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is subject to a one-revert rule by order of the arbitration commitee. The last sentence in your comment, I'm afraid, may lead to trouble (WP:BATTLE). ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process, but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard may be of use.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I see people trying to deny documentary evidence of a fact as "not reliable", I tend to see people trying to push things down the memory hole and get pretty upset. That's why I never trust Wikipedia on political material. DevilInPgh (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a warning

This is not a warning or caution, just a FYI. Even if an edit or series of edits are entirely and unquestionably within Wikipedia policy, if you do them to make a point instead of doing them for the sole purpose of improving Wikipedia then you may be violating the "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" guideline. Editing in a sour grapes fashion or a "if that's the rule, take this" fashion can get you into that situation. Again, this isn't a warning or admonition, just a word to the wise to a new user. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miami Hurricanes baseball may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|- align="center"]]''' || P || [[Cleveland Indians]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]