User talk:Ffolkes

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Harry Hopkins, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hopkins[edit]

Do not delete referenced material about Harry Hopkins, even if you have access to contradictory material. Instead, bring the opposing material into the article as another viewpoint, one which contradicts the mainstream viewpoint. Otherwise, your deletion of sourced material is what other editors will focus on, and they will delete your deletion, no matter the value of what you think you have added. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Harry Hopkins[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Hopkins. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again,as you did at Harry Hopkins, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello Ffolkes, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Alan Grayson has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Groucho Marx, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Ffolkes, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2015[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ayman Mohyeldin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption[edit]

Please do not mark substantive changes as minor edits. That flag should be reserved for changes that do not add or alter meaning, such as spelling corrections. Several of your recent edits also make me think you would benefit from a close (re)reading of WP:BLP. Thanks. Rhoark (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Use edit summaries to explain why you revert major well-sourced changes, and indeed as User:Rhoark says do no mark them as minor. Discuss controversial changes on article talkpages instead of reverting. You have never posted on a talkpage, not even your own. Your recent edits on Lena Dunham and Ayman Mohyeldin are disruptive. If you don't improve your editing practices, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used to contravene Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ffolkes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Paul Erik. My contributions to several biographies were attributed and factual. They were not offensive, subjective or disruptive. Perhaps you could explain the reason why I was singled out for exclusion other than checking the minor edit box when that may not have been the proper box to check? Thank you. Ffolkes (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below, if you do not understand why using a satirical article as a serious source might be problematic, you shouldn't be editing here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Getting this from this shows you lack a certain... competence required to edit here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ffolkes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, Bishonen, Paul Eric, I assumed your admonition about not recognizing satire was an April Fools' Day joke, but it appears you are in earnest. Dunham's article is/was indeed accurately depicted as comparing Jews to dogs regardless if she is channeling Jonathan Swift, which she is most certainly not. I also provided The New Yorker Magazine reference for wiki users to read for themselves. Apparently the The Anti-Defamation League doesn't appreciate the wiki notion of defusing Dunham's politically incorrect musings as satire either. As far as the Ayman Mohyeldin edit concerning his remarks on MSNBC, I linked to the actual video of him making his remarks on MSNBC which refutes what another editor currently has listed about Mohyeldin not being given a chance to rebut what the other three hosts said about his Chris Kyle commentary. Thank you for your insight.Ffolkes (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't appear to accept the possibility that you misjudged this. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.