User talk:Rockypedia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Rockypedia reported by User:Eclipsoid (Result: ). Thank you. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Some well-deserved nourishment for you. Keep up the good work! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerard López

Hi there RP, from Portugal,

thanks for that link, a thousand pardons are in order! I assumed he had left Catalonia as he was appointed at Barcelona B, so (stupidly) jumped the gun, I guess he can coach two at once, one of them being an amateur team that only plays twice or thrice a year.

All due arrangements have been made, sorry for any inconvenience (and for the summaries, not the best I admit) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, you did a fine job editing the lead, just keep in mind that there have to be references available for edits made documenting any major changes in a player's or coach's career. I'd also recommend registering for an account - it's free and takes 30 seconds, and there are many benefits to it. Cheers! Rockypedia (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad edits at David Daleiden

No, that is NOT what those sources say. This article is a BLP, and so I'm sure you are aware that adherence to sources is paramount. If you have other sources, bring them forward. But do not add bogus information to a biography on the claim that "there are other sources". Eclipsoid (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I just did. Check the talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And I will add that you are now (once again) at 3RR. Do us all a favor and slow your roll a little. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Us? I made a change, you reverted, I reverted once, you reverted a second time. I added a source, and changed the text to reflect the source's text. I count 2 reverts by you at this time, and certainly not three by me. Rockypedia (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - abortion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Betrayed (1988 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Order. 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) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Laurie Mylroie. Addition of an unsourced birth date is a BLP violation. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, ukexpat (talk), I didn't add it. I reverted an unexplained removal of it, after another editor had done the same, and saw his changes reverted by the new editor. Turns out I was unclear on the policy regarding birthdates, but it's all good now. Rockypedia (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Saint Peter

Hallo Rockypedia, could you please revert also the moves of Old Saint Peter's Basilica and Saint Peter's Square? Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And could you also revert Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Truly you are doing god's work (pun intended). Dumuzid (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks Dumuzid and Laurel Lodged. I think. Rockypedia (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign, thanks for restoring the names! :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I got them all. Also, there were a few that will require admin intervention, because some of the pages have histories besides being just redirects. Rockypedia (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Ohlmeyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Downey. 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) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

You've been around longer than I have, so I hoped you'd tell me why you got rid of my edit. You said

"you removed a line that was directly related to the quote before it, then you removed the quote saying it was now a non-sequitur - only bc of your first removal, of course. No dice."

I don't see the problem here exactly. I removed something that was unsourced and I thought irrelevant. We're supposed to source things. I don't even know if it's true. And it seemed a little on the indiscriminate-collection-of-info side to me. Supposing this first removal was the right thing to do, then what's wrong with removing something else which is now a non-sequitur? Obviously it was because of my first removal, but that doesn't make it wrong. If the first removal was correct, so was the second, right?

If you have any advice on determining the difference between indiscriminate trivia and relevant content in "Production Notes" sections (apart from "Read the help pages") I'd appreciate it.

Your copyediting removes the point that Ontkean started, rather than just played, for UNH. Was this because it wasn't sourced or some other reason? From his stats, it's pretty obvious that he started, but I guess that's not the same. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I barely remember this edit, but I know the second edit was because I couldn't find any reliable info that stated Ontkean was an American citizen at the time that he made that movie. The word "started" vs. "played" was an unintentional casualty of my rearranging of the entire sentence. If you can find a source that says he was a starter, feel free to add it back in - in my opinion, though, being a "starter" in hockey is not the same thing as being a starter in basketball or football, unless you're a goalie. So it may be best to just leave it. Rockypedia (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mark Hallman

I hope I have sufficiently addressed your concerns with enough additional reliable source citations to satisfy your doubts as to Mark Hallman's notability. If so, would you please rescind the AfD? I may be a Wikipedia novice but I don't believe Mark Hallman deserves to have his page deleted. Thanks for the edits and education. SnowyOwl512 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, User:Rockypedia, you left a notice on my talk page of an edit I had made. With regards to both the Eugène Terre'Blanche and Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging you haven't properly referenced the sources you used with an incorrect access date. This is why they were removed. They need to be properly cited as many people around the world access these articles and need the correct referencing if they are to cite the information correctly . Also, your edit to introduce Terre'Blanche as a 'White supremacist' in the lead paragraph has already been discussed on the talk page at Talk:Eugène Terre'Blanche and there didn't seem to have been any consensus. Might I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page as per standard Wikipedia protocol. I'm afraid unilateral edits in the manner you have displayed aren't tolerated on Wikipedia and consensus must be reached. For further help on what you can do to, please see WP:CYCLE. If you are new to editing on Wikipedia, please visit WP:INTRO. If you have any questions, please visit WP:OFAQ. Thank you! Donenne (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you know Eugène Terre'Blanche is referred to as a white supremacist by dozens of reliable sources, and you can find them and add them to the article if you wish. With proper access dates, of course. I would ask why you didn't just correct the access dates yourself (it was a simple of typo of "2015" rather than "2016") but we both know your real goal is just the removal of the terms "white supremacist" and "neo-nazi", since those terms don't market very well when racist groups and individuals are trying to make themselves seem more palatable to the rest of the world. I'd appreciate if you would get an admin involved if you think my edits are contentious, since that will firmly establish that what you're doing is just flat out wrong. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, User:Rockypedia, Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. You have insinuated I had removed your edit due to a sympathy for the politics of the articles in question. I find your comments personally troubling, not least of which is the fact that fascist ideology has affected the lives of some amongst my family. Please be more considerate next time you make insinuations of that nature.

No, I didn't insinuate anything; I pretty much flat-out stated it, because your edits to these two pages are similar to the edits of a host of other editors, both registered and anon IP, that seek to remove what they regard as pejorative terms from white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups and individuals, which are always backed up by reliable sources. Also, what (unverifiable) things did or didn't involve your family members and fascists is completely irrelevant here, sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the references, it is not my job to correct your mistake.

It's not your "job," as you put it, to edit Wikipedia either, unless you're being paid by someone to do it, which I doubt. My view on editing is that if I can fix a typo made by another editor, I'm going to fix it, rather than wipe out their entire edit, change the meaning of the paragraph in question, and use the typo as an excuse to insert non-referenced and incorrect statements. You chose the latter method. Rockypedia (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Whilst many reliable secondary sources state the groups adheres to radical ideologies aka 'Neo-nazism', the groups itself makes no mention of embracing 'Neo-nazism', and even denies this. As the article is about the group in question, the views expressed by said group must be included in the article and not be omitted. This neutral stance was reflected in my edit, with a primary-source cited and your source also cited. Readers and viewers need to have both sides of the argument in order for Wikipedia to maintains its objectivity.

You better check WP:PRIMARY because, if your argument here is sincere (I have my doubts), you should read the part that includes "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Also, you didn't even cite a primary source to begin with, so your edits can be removed on that basis alone. Regardless, without a secondary source backing up the group's denials of being neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the reliable secondary sources that do report these things are the ones that determine article content. Rockypedia (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are in the consolidating phase in regards to learning Wikipedia rules and protocol. It takes time, but remember, if in doubt, always be civil and maintain a neutral point of view :) Donenne (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your condescending manner is a novel approach for someone who's trying to force their own non-neutral POV onto articles in Wikipedia, and I look forward to more meaningless wiki-lawyering from you, as it has provided me with some measure of amusement this fine day. Rockypedia (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Russia

Why did you revert me here? There web-site has an article of the party chairman, Andrei Saveliyev, stressing this point. http://velikoross.org/ 267.I854.209 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think I just click links before checking the URL, you're mistaken. For anyone else, be aware that the link is not the same as the text. Nevertheless, I'll leave your message here so that an admin can see the kind of editing you're doing. Rockypedia (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

267.I854.209 (talk) Unfortunately, I see you've been blocked from editing further. That's a shame. Well, let me know if you decide to appeal the block and I'll try to help you with that. Rockypedia (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

Please do not ascribe negative motivations to me or to other people you do not know. The intro to an article is supposed to summarize what is said in the article's body. As far as I can see, the article's body doesn't call this guy a white nationalist at all. It does have quite a bit of material on his writings, however. I don't see that, as you claim, Wikipedia describes him "first and foremost" as a white nationalist. Lou Sander (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It's strange that the article doesn't have the description of Taylor as a white nationalist in it. I'll check that, and if it's indeed the case, I'll fix that; I'll find a few more sources as well (they're everywhere for this guy); that should make you happy. Or not. Doesn't matter, as we both know what Jared Taylor is notable for when we check secondary sources. Rockypedia (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So I went and found those sources; added them to the page. What's notable is that not only are there an abundance of sources referring to him as a white nationalist, there's also several that refer to him as a white supremacist. It's probably worth discussing adding that to the lead as well. Rockypedia (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

American Renaissance Lead

Your Washington Post and Fortune magazine claims in the lead are not supported in the body of the article. Please fix this. See THIS and THIS for guidance in how to handle it. Lou Sander (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, first off, they're not "my claims" - they're simply how citations for that sentence. I'm breaking it down for you on the talk page of that article; I think that's the more appropriate place for this discussion. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You probably both need to remember WP:3RR. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

True that. Trying to avoid the 3RR, but also tryin to follow WP:CYCLE. Rockypedia (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, but of course in this case 3rr rules. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

American Renaissance

Please confine your talk page discussions to the content of the article. Please stop scolding me, patronizing me, and criticizing my methods there. If you have something to say to me, please say it on my talk page. If it has any merit, I will respond to it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Literally none of what you just said had any merit, and anyone who takes the time to look through your edits will see through your accusations and notice that you're the problem there. Rockypedia (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

white Genocide

Your wrong! About Edits!! Johnhancock786 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice. Rockypedia (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)