Hello, Rja13ww33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi! I removed the POV tag you added because you never explained why you added it, in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Why do you think the article is POV? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... I found your comments. So what I did was ping several editors who had edited this article in the past. That way they'll take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been addressed. Please don't hold this article WP:HOSTAGE. If you have new concerns, use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they have not. (Including the fact Garvin's criticism is evaluated and while others are not. Even another editor agreed with me on that.) Also, I have linked to an article that says Webb was not vindicated (and I plan to post more). Please stop removing the issue at the top of the page. Furthermore, your comments in the article demonstrate that you are not impartial. A third person should be involved in a re-write.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns were addressed. I have not made any comments in the article. My comments on the talk page are about sources. You've pointed to an editorial by a person who is not impartial, and who has personally waged a campaign against Webb. This is not a reliable source for a BLP. There is currently no neutrality problem and the tag will be removed again. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in the talk section were of a personal nature about someone's background and inappropriate. I feel someone else besides you should be involved in this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be very confused. Evaluating a source for reliability is not a comment on the "personal nature about someone's background" nor inappropriate. It is what we do when we determine which source is best for the encyclopedia. I suggest you read and understand WP:RS. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gary Webb. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the page and the issue at hand....this editor keeps removing the neutrality issue despite the fact that it remains unresolved. And also (when you read the page) he is hardly impartial....we need help on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were given explicit, specific instructions in how to deal with what you perceive as a "neutrality" problem. You refused to take any action. Instead, you have consistently and persistently accused me of bias for no reason. You can't continue to add a neutrality tag when you refuse to solve the problem. The tag is only used to alert others of a problem and then to fix it. It is not used to permanently tag an article. The tag will be removed again. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC tag is out there....there is no point in discussing this with you further.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I kept the NPOV tag on there and I've now initiated the RfC deal is I was hoping to attract as many editors as possible (so far its' been mainly two besides myself) to the page to get a discussion going as to how to approach this. You might think I don't respect wiki's rules, but the fact I didn't jump in and start messing with the article (when I felt it was an overall issue) shows the opposite. If nothing happens with the RfC, I might take the editing path.....but first clearing it on the "Talk" page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are 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. ⁓ Hello71 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not change it again without reaching consensus. But it appears the other user is doing just that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Burkie Barnstar
	Is hereby awarded for your extraordinary contributions to the topic of Conservatism in particular keeping Ronald Reagan at a level of high quality. The Burkie (named for Edmund Burke) is the highest award given at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel(talk) 08:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the information you removed from Reaganomics was "see talk page". What part of the talk page are you referring to? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added. Didn't think anyone would follow up that quickly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just semi-idle curiosity on my part. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Skjoldbro (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your reverts at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I do not see how an exemption to WP:3RR immediately applies to them. Please bear that in mind before you revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not mess with it again without resolution on talk page. I have added a section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert more than three times for any reason other than obvious vandalism, copyright violations or violations of the biographies of living persons policy - ever. Two reverts at most is best practice. Apart from feeding the revert cycle, it makes it a personal contest of wills when community consensus should declare itself, with more than one editor involved. It also gives disruptive editors a target, when we should be asserting policy and consensus. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

(Concerning your selective notification of editors at Talk:Ronald Reagan) –dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Ronald Reagan. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message received.....but let me point out: Rjensen and Drdpw already expressed their opinions before this RFC. Just need them to record it formally. But will respect this rule in the future.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your identity and location have been noted. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means.....but if you continue to do what you are doing....you will be reported. You need to find RS for your claims.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly has this been issued to me at this time? Because of my participation on the talk section of the Jared Taylor page (weeks ago)? There are other participants there who have not gotten such a notice.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the notice somewhat clumsily explains, the notice is not meant to imply there are any issues with your contributions, only to make you aware of a policy in effect on this article.

Periodically, I take a look at who has recently been involved in discussion on some topics and make sure that they have been notified. Today, that was you, Jaxso71 and 98.164.86.105. The three of you are the most recent contributors to that talk page. The IP's comment was today. Jaxso71's was one day before yours. The three prior contributors were InferableSpy, Doug Weller and Drmies. Doug Weller notified InferableSpy (with a related notice), ensuring both are aware. Drmies is an admin; I know he has issued blocks based on the ruling. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]