User talk:BHillbillies

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, BHillbillies! I am SarekOfVulcan and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting articles

That's not how you protect pages: you can put in a request at Requests for page protection, if you like. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Help

Please don't vandalize The Help again. Or any other article, for that matter. Propaniac (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pardo

You added the category Category:The National Broadcasting Company which doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lawford

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.182.112 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP user's revision and warning regarding the Peter Lawford article are correct. If you want to add large amounts content, especially quotes, the content needs to be properly cited per WP:VERIFIABILITY or it will likely be removed. Just saying where the content came from as you did in your recent edit summary is not sufficient. Another user and I went through the article some time back adding sources in an attempt to make sure the article is in line with Wikipedia policy. Please do not add the content back until you have attributed it properly. Further, you're removing various valid categories (1923 births and 1984 deaths, etc.) for seemingly no reason. Please be mindful of the categories you remove if you want to add additional categories. Additionally, categories need to be supported by the text and sources in the article. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to pile on so all I'll say is it's now time to take it to the talk page. I just reverted you again and came here to tell you why but found this discussion already ongoing. It's talk page time, please do not revert again, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 rr violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is being reported here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Peter Lawford. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

January 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Frank Langella worked, and 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. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Sheila McCarthy, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Frances Bay. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Leonard Thompson (golfer), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)‎[reply]

Concerned

BHillbillies,

I'm concerned by this edit. It seems clear to me that our BLP subject has been working within the rules, even to the point of contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the final step in BLP resolution, as written in WP:BLP. Yet you arbitrarily overrode the WMF's edits based on someone else's research, without clearly understanding what was going on. In so doing, you have placed us in a very tricky spot.

Your talk page is beginning to be concerning to me. It seems clear that you don't yet have the robust understanding of editing policies that is necessary to engage in particularly sensitive areas. May I suggest that you request an adopter through the Adopt-A-User program? I'd be happy to recommend one to you.

In the meantime, please don't do that again. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

What the hell is this? --Closedmouth (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BHillbillies. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re: Peter Lawford

Regarding your message about the Peter Lawford article - according to the edit history, you did not add sources to the content you attempted to add to the article on several occasions (see this edit for example). Further, my definition of what cited content is is not my definition - it is a guideline that can be read here. I explained this to you at the time (in fact, my message is still above) and stated quite plainly that simply listing where you got the information in an edit summary is not sufficient. I was also not the only person who reverted you for this reason which indicates that your method of adding content, regardless of whether the content is correct or interesting, was incorrect. Additionally, Find-a-Grave is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because the bios listed there are written by users and are not generally fact checked. As such, we cannot go by what is claimed on that website whether you feel it is correct or not. The rest of content you want to add is debatable at best. If you feel so strongly about including such tidbits as Lawford possibly being the last person to talk to Marilyn Monroe before her death, I suggest you open a dialogue about it on the article talk page and get further community input. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this once more and as plainly as I can. I am not the only editor who objected to your additions. You were previously reverted by at least two other editors who told you that the content you wanted to add was a). unsourced and b). unencylopedic. You were reverted just the other day by Doc9871 here for adding changing Lawford's cause of death, so it is obvious I am not the sole editor who has reverted you or who is trying to "keep[s] them out". In fact, I do not see any editor who has agreed with any of your additions on that article to date. Every thing that happens on the article is available in the edit history in case your memory has escaped you. Also, I didn't ask you to put anything on the Lawford talk page. I suggested that you open a dialogue on the article talk page to get further community input because it is becoming clear that you're not comprehending (or simply do not want to hear) what I am telling you about sourcing and the content you want to add (this was also suggested to you twice by Crohnie here and here. That suggestion is beneficial to you and is proper dispute resolution procedure. Incidentally, I do not see any posts by you (under the username anyhow) on the talk page, so claims to the contrary are puzzling. Lastly, resorting to expletives when in a minor disagreement with someone is not an indication that one is an adult as you previously claimed to be. I may have said things that you disagreed with, but I was not disrespectful or rude and I expect the same. If you feel overwhelmed with emotion and just can't help typing out such words, do stay off my talk page. Thank you. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm glad you found another reference for the cardiac arrest C.O.D. - I took it directly from Spada when I added it. I also wrote the section on the Rat Pack article pertaining to Lawford and Sinatra using Spada - if you wanted to include it at the Lawford article I wouldn't object to it too much, but you need to use the source from Spada and not WP to avoid WP:CIRCULAR. Other sources need to be used for this article as well, as Spada was the only source I had at the time when I started adding more "meat" to the article (including the part about his marriages). This article needs a lot of work and expansion, and both Pinkadelica and Crohnie are good and dedicated editors that I've known for awhile who (among other things) protect articles from possible POV edits and inaccuracies. We can all easily work together on improving the article, and we can leave attitudes at the door for the most part. Any potentially controversial edits may have to be discussed on the talk page, that's all. Cheers... Doc talk 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see another editor took out the infobox reference - it's fully described in Spada anyway. It actually gets pretty gory, talking about black sputum and convulsions; a sad end. BTW, I had a very good RL friend who died last year that had liver disease caused by Hepatitis C and resulting cirrhosis. He died officially from cardiac arrest and kidney failure, but the liver disease is what killed him. Medical stuff. Happy Editing :> Doc talk 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Peter Lawford. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is an unnecessary edit summary [1]. 70.241.28.1 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]