User talk:Jp5472

Welcome!

Hello, Jp5472! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Edit warring[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published research from credible second and third-party sources, which means that Mark Dillon and the Newsday's observations are perfectly sound for inclusion, just as Jim Fusilli's observation that "Brian Wilson may have almost written himself in a dead hole" is, as you put it, "conjecture". Sources which make independent observations are not banned from Wikipedia. In this case, there are two sources for the same piece of information. Please stop edit warring the God Only Knows article and discuss on the talk page why you think the information should be excluded, and to cite which protocols you believe the text violates. (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reported per WP:3RR and blocked from Wikipedia if you revert once more before a consensus is reached.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:59, 7 October 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. Thank you.

Edit warring at God Only Knows[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at God Only Knows. 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.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Jp5472 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (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).

Jp5472 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I gave my reasons over and over again. This individual repeatedly would change it to reflect just enough to continuously put complete conjecture, completely unsubstantiated claims, and disavowed sources (It is well publicised that Brian Wilson had nothing to do with the writing of his memoirs. They were totally a Eugene Landy creation) Is Wikipedia a real Encyclopedia or a gossip rag, because that is what this individual keeps trying to force into this article - gossip Do I get my information from gossip rags? I would think not. Again, I gave my reason all too many times as there wasn't any give on the part of the other individual, just reinsertion of gossip/falsehoods again and again. Jp5472 (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In a 24 hour period you more than 3 reverts on a single article that were not removing copyright violations, libelous statements, or vandalism. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2014 (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.

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).

Jp5472 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

thanks for clarifying that it's more important for some procedural BS dance than it is to post legitimate honest material. Jp5472 (talk) 9:44 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please don't use this template unless you are actually filing an appeal against your block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 8 October 2014 (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.

If you don't mind a suggestion from me, Jp5472, the point is that when there is a disagreement about content both sides tend to think they're right. So it's really not going to work for the rules to say "It's OK to keep on reverting providing you're the one in the right" - that way, the edit wars would never end. What's needed instead is to agree not to edit war any further, and to go discuss the disputed material on the article talk page - and let a discussion-based consensus decide what the article will say. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]