User talk:APZ982

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

APZ982, good luck, and have fun. – Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me what was defamatory? Everything I said came straight from his own articles and his own twitter, and every single thing is sourced. Please tell me how I am defaming him by repeating exactly what he says and providing sources to said information.

I wrote 5 lines of information and I have 5 sources. Out of 6 total sources on the page, my 5 lines account for 5 of them. Every single then I said can be verified by simply clicking the reference links. Nothing even close to defamatory has been said.

Your edits on Goldie Taylor[edit]

I appreciate your deep concern about Goldie Taylor's recent remarks, and your desire to express them. There are plenty of places on the Internet (and beyond) for you to take your message, and I encourage you to do so and to make your voice heard... but Wikipedia is not the proper place for a personal rebuttal. We cover things that are being covered elsewhere, not introduce new information or viewpoints. If there is considerable public controversy over her remarks, we could cover the controversy in that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Goldie Taylor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Valenciano (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Taylor[edit]

Prior to my involvement, the entire "Goldie Taylor" page had one singe source.

Someone keeps trying to put back up the 25 paragraphs of unsourced information.

As far as my contribution, I didn't realize that no critique was allowed. Even though my critique was factual, and in response to something extremely inaccurate, I will refrain to do so for now on. It should be noted that my contribution doubled the amount of sources on the page.

I would like to put the info about the article back up, leaving out the critique.

I would also like to continue to challenge the mountains of unsourced information on this page. I tried to run down some of these things to find out if they were true, and I found zero corroboration for the majority of them.

After reading her questionable article it makes me wonder who is behind all of this info on wikipedia that is positive to her, but totally unsourced, and who would take the time to keep deleting my edits.

I am doing this in good concious. Before reading her article, I did not know who this woman was. I have nothing against her.

Based on my research, I honestly don't believe many of the things on her page are true.

UPDATE:

I reposted the info about the article, with zero critique. Everything comes straight from her article, which I source, or from 2 other sources that I also provide.

In total, its a short 4 paragraph assessment, with 3 documented sources.

The rest of the page is about 50 paragraphs, with one single source.

I would hope that given all this, my factual and sourced assessment of her article will be allowed to remain.

I'd also hope that the mountains of unsourced info on the Goldie Taylor page be checked out or taken down.

Hello, just for your information Talk:Goldie Taylor is better place to discuss about this article. Talk pages are meant for discussions related to the improvements to the articles. Regards. Hitro talk 21:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question of "who would take the time to keep deleting my edits", hi, my name is Nat Gertler. You can find my user page at User:NatGertler. I'm not the only one who deleted your material, but I did most of it. I do things like check new articles for appropriateness, and undo or correct problematic edits, and as I patrol new pages, this often extends to articles that I have no particular direct interest in, like Goldie Taylor. You can check the edit history of the article, and you'll find that my edits on that page have mostly had to do with deleting material that would run into problems with Wikipedia's policy on biographical material about living people, and my very first edit, in which I marked the page for lack of sufficient and proper sources. I'm not positive (I've dealt with literally thousands of articles here, so I may be confusing it with other articles in my memory), but I think there was an earlier, completely unsourced version which was deleted because I called for its deletion. So if your suspicion is that I am trying to somehow promote or specially protect Taylor, your suspicion is off the mark. I share in Hitro's recommendation that you go to Talk:Goldie Taylor and try discussing your issues with the article there. I also recommend that if you delete material, you include the reasons for the deletion in the edit summary box below the editing window; that will help other editors understand why you took the step. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

APZ982, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi APZ982! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Thom Loverro, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Thom Loverro, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Thom Loverro, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acabashi (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:APZ982 reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). Thank you. RolandR (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating WP:3RR and WP:BLP at Thom Loverro. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

If you start with the Loverro thing again, your account will be blocked permanently. Consider this your only warning, since you came back from your previous block to do exactly the same thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]