User talk:The Red Peacock
Propaganda films[edit]
Take a good look at the category under discussion. [1] The present criteria for inclusion is something that has been deemed propaganda by historians over decades. A proposal to include more recent films reached no consensus. If you had your way, hundreds of films would be classed "propaganda", on both the left and right. Dynablaster (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, The Red Peacock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ryan Delaney talk 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ryan Delaney talk 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources and blanking[edit]
I've responded at my page, but I wanted to make sure you saw the discussion. If you feel that something is sourced through unreliable sources [2], it's best to discuss it on the talk page rather than just blanking the section. Consensus has been established to keep the section, so you should discuss it before blanking. The same can be said fior your edits here [3] where you claim Dick Morris' quotes are taken out of context. It's not enough just to say that in an edit summary, you should explain fully what you mean on the talk page and let other editors have a chance to agree or disagree with you. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 Tea Party protests, you will be blocked from editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Tea Party protests. 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. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 Tea Party protests, you will be blocked from editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring on 2009 Tea Party protests. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
May 2009[edit]
When removing text (as you did at Joe Barton), please discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Wareh (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Explain yourself[edit]
What is with your edit to my talk page? You have inserted a random warning template with no follow up. How is re-inserting a quotation not adhering to WP:NPOV? You initially cited WP:RS. Would you clarify what you are objecting to instead of mindlessly inserting a templated warning on my talk page? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
3RR warning[edit]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Will Beback talk 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- As an outsider stumbling upon the edit war in which TharsHammar, The Red Peacock, Ryan Delaney, and Loonymonkey are involved in; the information being disputed is relevant to the section that The Red Peacock added it to. My concern is whether or not the other three editors involved in this edit war should first resolve their dispute in the discussion page prior to deleting relevant information. I think The Red Peacock should be given leeway to the 3RR if the other three editors are also given leeway, because his edit to the article is reasonable while the deletion of it is without merit. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is your last warning re edit warring, on NP in particular. A quick review of your contributions shows no attempts to use the article talk pages. This is bad; talking is good William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Obama article probation notice[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Presidency of Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sally Kern. 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. Ryan Delaney talk 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Howard Dean. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ryan Delaney talk 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The Red Peacock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look I am sorry about the Howard Dean article but I should not be blocked. I explained on the Sally Kern article as well as in my edit summaries that the gun possession lead to nothing. My edit on the Barack Obama article was not undue weight like someone suggested. The Red Peacock (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned to stop, and this isn't your first block. Please avoid edit-warring in the future. Take the high road and use the talk page or file a request for comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I've asked Ryan Delaney to comment. While you have a bit of a point on the duration, you didn't wait a week because you felt it was a good idea but because you were blocked and had no choice. I'd support a reduction in the block, but not a complete reversal. --auburnpilot talk 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would strongly urge you not to shorten the block. I first blocked The Red Peacock (talk · contribs) for 1 week due to edit warring on Sally Kern and also due to this vandalism [4]. The reason for the length of the block that time was his history of edit warring and the fact that he had been blocked previously. During that block he maintained that he was in the right to repeatedly revert multiple editors because they hadn't responded on the talk page, and refused to stop reverting despite warnings. Once his block expired he immediately began reverting again, including making other controversial removals of content in other articles. Since he makes no indication that he will stop edit warring when he returns I think it would be very unwise to remove the block. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The Red Peacock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is non-sense. I am not engaging in an edit war. I offered my response on the talk page 10 days ago and no one responded. This is completely unjustified. The Red Peacock (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, but I agree with Ryan Delaney that you have engaged in edit warring. The block does not seem inappropriate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sockpuppetry case[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showtime2009 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Prolog (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)