Not sure why you removed it. Maybe to cut the length? The other cleanup was very good. I noticed you said "primary source" in the edit summary, but there's no prohibition on using a primary source in this way, and actually having the entire transcript might be good in this particular situation since news media mangled and summarized it many times. -- Avanu (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my Talk page:

This is what occurred, and my latest edit:

You made major changes to a section, including removing a phone call transcript and revising text. The section had been the way it was with only minor changes for months. I reverted and said it should be discussed first on the talk page.

Another editor partially reverted my edit, leaving the text changes but restoring the call transcript. You had started the talk discussion, and you reverted that editor, saying it should be discussed first. Your original edit is what should have been discussed first, however. The other editor removed what might be questionable, the text (even though it's been there months), and Talk discussion showed that the transcript was acceptable and another source, Mother Jones, could be given. Since the transcript wasn't objectionable I reverted to the version of the other editor. The consensus on the page seemed to be that the transcript should stay. One editor mentioned that some text added to the transcript, such as noting when sounds of a car door opening are heard, could be removed, but that is the only mention of it. And those things could just be removed, if you object to them. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post this also to your Talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed it on the talk page. You reverted the same info back in twice. The fact that there was an intervening edit does not matter. If 1RR is no longer the rule, so be it, but you made these reverts when other editors were right in the middle of discussing it, and you did not even bother commenting on the talk page. You should anticipate that such editing behavior is going to escalate the dispute. Take the time to actually consider my points about the transcript, rather than quickly reverting to your preferred version. Minor4th 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not revert the same info twice. I reverted to Avanu's version which is only the transcript and which left your edits. And all the other editors have been for keeping the transcript, saying it's helpful and it isn't OR but WP:TRANSCRIPTION. One said that some added text could come out, but that isn't the same as removing the whole transcript. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting personal definition of what constitutes a revert and what doesn't. You reversed all or a part of the same edit 3 times now, and I note that you continue to edit war. Have at it, the article means a whole lot more to you than it does to me. I was trying to improve it, but the rules and guidelines are suspended on this article, and it's fallen to POV editors.Minor4th 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl Kitteh!

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet  Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I made a comment regarding the Shooting at Trayvon Martin page that relates to the present issues regarding the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sons of Perdition (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oprah Winfrey Network. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M4th: would you do me the favor of reviewing the top article in my Sandbox for NPOV and other WP requisites, before I put it up. Our pal is bound to take exception (if not hysteria) to it as a matter of principle. I would like it to be as sound as possible beforehand. Feel free to tear it up (constructively). Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as time allows.Minor4th 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)See User:PraeceptorIP/JEM Case. I've worked on it some for him. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]