User talk:D is for...
Welcome!
Hello, D is for..., 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! RayTalk 15:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Adam Beach
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 Adam Beach. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
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 Tinsel Korey. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Tinsel Korey
Please do not add this controversial content to the article again, the article is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard, if you think the content has a value then open a discussion on the talkpage. Also please add an edit summary to your edits so that other editors can see what you are doing, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
January 2010
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andrea Smith (academic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Irn (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Korey
Perhaps you will find some explaination here the content was deemed controversial and the sources were not considered reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What would be then? What would be a reliable source? How is a Native American news page "not reliable"? I think this is the most relevant information/aspect of this woman of all (same if a very small local politician was hugely corrupt). According to you, can I add it and say that there are "rumours" (although that this point that's ridiculous- a Native actors association already rejected "Korey" four years ago due to her being a fake Indian)? D is for... (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be adding this repeatedly. Csan you please discuss it on the talkpage before adding it again as it is a disputed conspiracy type claim. This http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2009/11/tinsel-korey-harsha-patel.htm is not a reliable source WP:RS for any additions to this wikipedia, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Colton Hayes
I see you are also being reverted on this BLP, please take a little time to read a few of this wikipedias policies and guidelines, WP:Policy and guidelines feel free to ask me for my thoughts on your desired edits in future, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a little time to just tell me straight out why I cannot post that in your opinion? D is for... (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colton Haynes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. 4twenty42o (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not engaging in any "war". What a terrible and tone-deaf choice of a term. I survived an actual civil war. I am not criticizing you personally, since this seems to be a wiki term, but it is tone deaf of wiki, nonetheless. I have already contacted the people who keep reverting sourced information seeking to find consensus with them and understand their reasons, they have yet to reply. BTW: I assume you contacted the party who keeps deleting my sourced information as well? D is for... (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- No need to contact any other users, as we seem to all be in agreement that you are a) not using a reliable source, b) single purpose editing, and c) after reviewing your edit history ARE edit warring ever so slightly by adding the same contested material over and over. I am reasonably certain we have had this conversation before, or one similar in the past. If I am mistaken perhaps you should take the time to re-read the manual of style and WP:RS. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A conversation is when there is actually interaction. You have refused any sort of constructive contact with me and have refused to reply to my questions or comments. I never got a reply from you or any other of the apparent high and mighty macho crowd. But yeah, a conversation WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA! Let's finally start! Back to my question: What are your suggestions to find a concensus here? How about if I write (as I suggested before, but never received a reply) it in a controversy (or similarly titled) paragraph?D is for... (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)