User talk:InternetReader2

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Pro se legal representation in the United States worked, so it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Your addition seems irrelevant. Please explain relevance on the talk page before restoring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pro se legal representation in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you might find that a change of "and" to "or" in a legal code is of great importance, it appears most other editors see it as ~~unimportant~~irrelevant. Your edit to WP:AIV was fruitless as this is not a vandalism matter. In fact your repeated attempts to add trival content is seen as disruptive instead. Agathoclea (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Judiciary does not make "trivial" changes to their wording. Regardless, if you think it is trivial or not, please be courteous and leave my sentence and U.S. Judiciary links in. The article requested "expansion" and my addition is a "reliable third- party publication". InternetReader2 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Agathoclea is not quite correct. We (at least I) am not questioning its importance. I'm (and most of the editors) are questioning the relevance to the articles you are adding it to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm. Got the wrong word - but that is what I meant in this context. Agathoclea (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the change in the U.S. Judiciary canons is "irrelevant" then why don't you just as a courtesy leave it in?InternetReader2 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

This is your final warning for edit warring. If you continue to engage in an edit war you will be blocked for abusing your editing privileges. You are advised to use talk pages to come to consensus to avoid disruption to Wikipedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InternetReader2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Avruch^T 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]